Template:Did you know nominations/Oise amber

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 Bruxton (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Oise amber

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that in the late 1990s, a deposit of Oise amber was found, which had over 20,000 arthropod inclusions to date? Source: https://hal-insu.archives-ouvertes.fr/insu-01743297/document
  • ALT1: ... that researchers say that Oise amber may have been produced by ancient trees? Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/science/15obambe.html
  • ALT2: ... that dental and skeletal remains can be found in Oise amber? Penney, David. Biodiversity of Fossils in Amber from the Major World Deposits. Google Books: Siri Scientific Press. p. 304. ISBN 9780955863646.
  • ALT3: ... that in 2000, pollen was extracted from Oise amber for the first time? Penney, David. Biodiversity of Fossils in Amber from the Major World Deposits. Google Books: Siri Scientific Press. p. 304. ISBN 9780955863646.
  • ALT4: ... that Quesnoin, a pure organic compound, has been isolated from Oise amber? Source: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jo701544k
  • ALT5: ... that many coprolites have been found in Oise amber, some with bones, teeth, fingerprints, and skin in them? Source: http://www.atlashymenoptera.net/biblio/01000/35_Brasero_et_al_Fossil_Oise_Denisia_2009.pdf
  • ALT6: ... that Oise amber is found near the Oise river? Penney, David. Biodiversity of Fossils in Amber from the Major World Deposits. Google Books: Siri Scientific Press. p. 304. ISBN 9780955863646.
  • ALT7: ... that fossilized feces have been found in Oise amber, some with bones, teeth, fingerprints, and skin in them? Source: http://www.atlashymenoptera.net/biblio/01000/35_Brasero_et_al_Fossil_Oise_Denisia_2009.pdf
  • ALT8: ... that Oise amber is a type of amber? Penney, David. Biodiversity of Fossils in Amber from the Major World Deposits. Google Books: Siri Scientific Press. p. 304. ISBN 9780955863646.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Cathedral of Our Lady of Seven Sorrows, Suzhou

Created by Helloheart (talk). Self-nominated at 02:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing: - question
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Helloheart: Good article. But what makes amber international a reliable source? Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• This source can be used for both facts that used Amber International as a source instead. Which hook should we use? I think ALT 7 is the hookiest, but I'd like to hear any other thoughts. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 01:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
• I've gone and fixed the citation both in the article and in the nomination. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 00:41, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Helloheart: I think you messed up the citation since it links to the google books page and not the actual book source. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Onegreatjoke: Fixed. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 00:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, that's better. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Helloheart and Onegreatjoke:I like 7 but there is no mention of fossilized feces in the given source or in the article. Bruxton (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton: The article mentions coprolites, which are fossilized feces. It just sounds more interesting and understandable if we say "fossilized feces" instead of "coprolite" ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 00:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Helloheart, Onegreatjoke, and Bruxton:, I see Alt7 has been promoted. I don't think the reference supports the hook, it says "The collected material relates to dental and skeletal remains, many coprolithes and a few exceptional items preserved in amber (hair, feathers) and in coprolithes (bones, teeth, fingerprints, skin) (NEL et al. 1999)." I read that as saying hair and feathers were preserved in amber, and the other items in coprolites, rather than amber. NEL et al. 1999 p. 66 says "There are some exceptional fossils imbeddded in both amber and coprolites, feathers and hairs in the former, bones, teeth, and skin cast in the latter." I have only read the English summary. TSventon (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

TSventon You are welcome to unpromote it if you think it is incorrect. I could be wrong. Bruxton (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Bruxton now unpromoted. TSventon (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Helloheart:, can you find a quote in the source to confirm that that Coprolite have been found in Oise amber], rather than in the soil containing the amber? TSventon (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

TSventon The prep set was not working for PSHAW until I removed the DYKMAKE template which was left behind after de-promotion, I accidentally promoted an incorrect choice this am and it worked with PSHAW. I will await a decision on a new hook. Bruxton (talk) 15:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Helloheart and Bruxton:, Bruxton, thank you for fixing my unpromote edits. I have struck the three least interesting hooks. My favourite fact so far is that analysis showed that the amber was produced by a tree now found in the amazon rainforest (same reference as ALT4). TSventon (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@TSventon and Bruxton: How about this:

ALT9: ... that even though Oise amber is found in France, it is produced by a tree found in the Amazon? Source: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jo701544k?cookieSet=1

‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 21:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Helloheart: it will need to be in the article. And we will need the approval of Onegreatjoke Bruxton (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton: Done, and pinging @Onegreatjoke: ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 21:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Helloheart: The article says "that was closely related to flesh resin from a modern tree" which is not the same as the amber being specifically found in a tree in the amazon. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Helloheart and Onegreatjoke:, I would try to make the wording less specific. I don't know much about biology, would "a type of tree" be an acceptable paraphrase of "closely related to ... a modern tree"? Also I changed "is produced" to "was produced" and "found" to "now found". TSventon (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

ALT9a: ... that even though Oise amber is found in France, it was produced by a type of tree now found in the Amazon? Source: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jo701544k?cookieSet=1

@Helloheart:, I have asked some more questions on the talk page. TSventon (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I have struck some inaccurate hooks per conversation on the talk page. TSventon (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@TSventon: Sorry for the delay. I've answered your questions on the talk page and fixed the article accordingly. Pinging @Onegreatjoke:. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 04:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I've fixed the article according to @TSventon:. Pinging @Onegreatjoke:. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 00:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I am now happy with the article fixes. TSventon (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Onegreatjoke:. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 00:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Approving again. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This still had a bunch of errors, which I have now fixed. I am not happy with the hook, as a direct attribution to Hymenea is not straightfoward. There is a later 2015 paper on the subject [1], which states that it can only be attributed to Fabaceae with confidence, and not Hymenaea specifically. The article itself is poorly written and not really worthy of a DYK. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)