The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Fossil Dipteronia brownii seed from Washington state
... that pollen study was needed to clarify the identity of a Dipteronia brownii(pictured) fossil? Source: Manchester 2001 commentary on Fushin Formation fossil
ALT1:... that fossils of Dipteronia brownii(pictured) are found across northwestern North America, but living Dipteronia are only native to China? Source: Manchester 2001
Overall: Article is new enough and long enough. No copyvio issues, and the picture is appropriately licensed. Should probably link or explain "palynological" in the article as not every reader will know that relates to pollen. I like ALT1 better but couldn't find that fact stated as clearly in the article, so for that reason hook 1 is approved. DrThneed (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Hmm, looking back it is harder to parse than I remembered. The first line of the last para of the Distribution section says: "Ding et al (2018) posited that the reduction of Dipteronia from the broad North American and wide Asian range seen in D. brownii to the isolated regional endemic of modern times seen in Dipteronia dyeriana and Dipteronia sinensis was the result of several factors." So that covers that the range of D brownii (a fossil) was NA and Asia, and the modern species have a reduced range. But it is missing the specific of the modern range only being in Asia. @Kevmin: can you make the wording of the article clearer so people don't struggle to find the hook fact? Also could you link palynology as I asked earlier in my review? Thanks. DrThneed (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron and DrThneed: Alt0 is the discussion of the Chu Chua (Joseph Creek) fossil, in which pollen sampling of the host rock for the fossil determined which of the two possible locations the fossil came from. So you would be looking at "History and Classification" paragraph 2 (long version is the whole paragraph), and for the hooks sake, the last two sentences. locations elsewhere in the Eocene Okanagan Highlands, leading Manchester (2001) to place the fossil as Joseph Creek, and state Dipteronia was not present in the Fushun Flora."The modern species are not actually what Alt0 is about, but rather what Alt1 is about."However the palynomorphs Liquidambarpollenites and Ephedripites were only seen in Fushun samples and not the Chu Chua or the mystery sample. Additionally though no other Dipteronia have been identified in Joseph Creek collections, the genus is present at coeval --Kevmin§ 05:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron and Kevmin: Apologies both, I misread which hook was being queried. Given the hook talks about pollen analysis and the article only uses the term palynological (which I don't think would be particularly widely understood), I still think it would be good to explain the term and link it in the article. It would make it easier for people to find the hook fact in the article, yes? DrThneed (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron and DrThneed: I linked palynology in the article and added the word pollen to the article itself. I don't want to add too much more basic palynology explanation to the article, since its a situation that was unique to a single fossil.--Kevmin§ 21:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you @Kevmin:, I think that's fine as the links give the reader an easy way to find out more if they don't understand. @Theleekycauldron:, does that address your concern? Sorry, this should have been sorted before I put the green tick on. DrThneed (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Article is new enough and long enough. No copyvio issues, and the picture is appropriately licensed. Should probably link or explain "palynological" in the article as not every reader will know that relates to pollen. I like ALT1 better but couldn't find that fact stated as clearly in the article, so for that reason hook 1 is approved. DrThneed (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)