Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Paleontology in the United States

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Round symbols for illustrating comments about the DYK nomination  The following is an archived discussion of Paleontology in the United States's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination's (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the DYK WikiProject's (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Paleontology in the United States

[edit]
(
)

Sue, a Tyrannosaurus rex specimen discovered in South Dakota.

  • Reviewed: See here.
  • Comment: Please note that there is a precedent for very long DYKs and while this ~600 character hook seems to exceed the 200 character limit, the rules stipulate that the extra links DYK nominations that include many articles are exempt from being counted. Roughly three fewer DYK hooks should be grouped with this to avoid stretching the Main Page Did You Know box. I have a sample Main Page in my userspace that illustrates how this hook can work well in context.
  • Here you can verify that the articles all contain the hook.
  • Here you can verify that all of the articles meet the length requirement.
  • Here you can verify that all of the articles have multiple sources.
  • Here you can verify that I've met my QPQ requirements.

Created/expanded by Abyssal (talk). Self nom at 05:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I have begun to review these. This is a pretty impressive set of articles. Looks like you've been working on these for a couple months and have put a lot of work into them. All of the articles are new enough (moved out of user space within the last couple days) and long enough. It will take me some time to complete the review, but I'm working through each of the articles to make sure all meet the remaining criteria. Cbl62 (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The lists you have provided are helpful in verifying some of the criteria. However, your QPQ list contains links to the actual articles rather than the applicable DYK templates. If you could modify that list so that it links to the templates, it would help speed the review of your QPQ compliance. Not required, but it would certainly help. Cbl62 (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'll do that early next week. Thanks for starting the review. Abyssal (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thank you. That clears up the QPQ portion of the criteria. Other elements still underway. Cbl62 (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Many of the articles have been tagged with "dablinks" indicating that the "article currently links to a large number of disamgiguation pages (or back to itself")." Can you check on and fix those issues? Cbl62 (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
As an example, many of the articles link to Ice Age which is a disambiguation page. I assume you are referring to the Quaternary glaciation of the Pleistocene era. But, see also, Last glacial period and Last Glacial Maximum. I made that change a couple places. If this is correct, it would help to make that change in all places where you have inadvertently linked to the diambiguation page. Cbl62 (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Noted. I'll look into this in the near to medium term future. I have exams and stuff coming up so life's a tad hectic. Abyssal (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Done. Abyssal (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • You consistently refer to "the US state of ..." That should be the "U.S. state of ..." I am fixing where I see it, but it would help if you could clean that up. Cbl62 (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I think I got all the ones that were missing. Thanks for doing the first half or so of them. Abyssal (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Spot-checks for copyright and undue parapharasing issues will be collected here. Listing does not mean there is a problem. This is simply for verification purposes: Wisconsin, West Virginia, Ohio. Cbl62 (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: I added 53 {{DYKmake}}s, for a total of 54, all crediting Abyssal. If anyone else also deserves credit for any of these, please add the appropriate templates for them. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Moved from main DYK discussion page. For a few days, I've been slowly working my way through reviewing the 40-plus multi found at Template:Did you know nominations/Paleontology in the United States. This is a group of paleontology articles that User:Abyssal has been working on for months in his user space, and which he/she moved into main space last week. The articles appear to be well-sourced, though much of the source material is off-line. The review process is daunting. I've completed a review of the last 15 or so subparts and am keeping a running list within the template identifying the subparts that have been reviewed. I would welcome others jumping in and checking out some of the articles. If you choose to do so, simply make a note as to which article(s) you have reviewed. That way, we'll know which parts are done and which still need work. Another set of eyes on such a massive set of articles is probably a good idea in any event. Cbl62 (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't think its the slightest bit hooky to be honest. Secretlondon (talk) 08:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: The second and third piped links ("dinosaur fossils" and "have been found" are in the nature of Easter egg hunts. Not sure if there's a formal policy on such links, but I know its been discussed a few times. See, e.g., Pipe links and piped links in DYK article names. Cbl62 (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Seems a bit unfairly harsh to compare those links to an Easter egg hunt; the link to the prehistory of the United States comes from a mention of one of the most prominent major groups of local prehistoric life and the link to the article on the history of fossil discoveries in the US comes from a mention of the US having a history of fossil discoveries, so both links are very directly related to their subject matter. Abyssal (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what I'd expect to find where the piped link says "have been found." I do think it's in the nature of an easter egg, but I'm not reaching any conclusion yet on whether it's inappropriate. Hopefully, others will chime in so that the reviews can be completed soon. Cbl62 (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Articles reviewed: This review is in process. Many of the source materials, particularly with respect to the hook fact, are off-line. I am assuming good faith on the part of Abyssal, who has been an established user since May 2006. So, far I have completed my reviews of "Paleontology in ..." the following states: Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Washington, D.C., West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. I will keep plugging away over the next several days and welcome assistance from others. Cbl62 (talk) 06:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your efforts! Abyssal (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again for your work. You don't need to stress out over this, you're reviewing a lot faster than I expected anyone to. Someone will get around to helping out eventually. User:Firsfron expressed interest in the project before and I've asked if he wants to chip in with the review. Abyssal (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
I will absolutely take a look at a few of these, armed with my copy of The Dinosauria and (occasionally) JSTOR. I may have a lot of free time on my hands in the next day or two weeks. I'll do my level best. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
[edit]
  • Alabama given an initial review, I cleaned up the prehistory section a bit. There are several tags in the History section that will need to be taken care of.--Kevmin § 02:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The quote was cited to footnote 18, although it was a few sentence after the quote itself so I added a copy right afterwards for clarity. My source doesn't specify which individual Professional Paper detailed the fossil plant localities and I'm reluctant to speculate about it in the article due to WP:OR grounds. However, I'd bet a testicle that Professional Paper 112, on the fossil floras of the southeastern US, including Alabama is the publication in question. Do you feel that's safe enough that we can specify it without making OR or should we just tolerate the vagueness? Abyssal (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Its a hard one, and you my want to ask User:LadyofShalott her opinion, as the person who first tagged that instance. I would be prepared to possibly revamp that section to remove the Professional paper reference if need be though.--Kevmin § 04:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I've left her a message. Abyssal (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I've fixed the passage and removed the tag. Abyssal (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks good now. --Kevmin § 20:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Arkansas given an initial review, I cleaned up the prehistory section a bit. The article generally look good, but would like clarification on two sentences before OKing. "Fish of the same age left behind teeth and fossils similar to those of the Arkadelphia were preserved in the area near Saratoga in Hempstead County." is currently a rather confused sounding sentence, and should be tweaked to make it understandable. "Pittman later performed an aerial survey and found evidence for 10 parallel sauropod trackways on a rock surface that had also endured extensive "trampl[ing]"." -is "trampl[ing]" used in the source or is it your usage? --Kevmin § 21:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I think I've rendered that sentence about the fish comprehensible now. With regards to trampling the original source says "trampled", the only the bracketed "ing" is mine. Abyssal (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The fish sentence is good now. Would "... which had been extensively "trampled"" work for the second sentence?--Kevmin § 00:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I've tweaked it. Abyssal (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Arkansas is good now.--Kevmin § 04:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Minnesota looks good to go, fixed a couple red links and removed a couple of duplicate links.--Kevmin § 22:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm reviewing Colorado. I would like to see citations for the following before I approve this one: the final two sentences (More recently, in 1982 ... that same year), and the lists of births, deaths and museums. Perhaps a sentence or two of context for each person in the births/deaths as well, to show their relationship with palaeontology in Colorado? Otherwise, looks well-sourced, free from copyvio (based on the online source), well-written and supportive of the hook. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 22:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Am happy to mark this as reviewed and verified now following the changes. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 20:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Nearly ready to verify, but please could you check the last two sentences of the "Scientific research" paragraph, as material is repeated. Also, as with as per my review of Colorado, pls could we have refs for the museums. Otherwise, all looks good. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 17:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • References added and redundant sentence removed. Abyssal (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Happy to confirm as verified folllowing these changes (sorry for the late follow-up). Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 23:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm starting to review some articles. Pennsylvania looks good, and offline sources are accepted in good faith. Smokeybjb (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm reviewing New York. The sentence dealing with dinosaur footprints lacks a source, but I assume you got the information from Weishampel and Young, which is cited in the next sentence about other reptiles. Could you make this clearer? The quote of sponges reaching "huge" sizes currently lacks a source. Also, citation is needed in the Scientific Research section for Eurypterus being designated as the state fossil. Smokeybjb (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Should be good now. Abyssal (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Nebraska reviewed. Solid sources, new enough, way past the minimum length, no complaints about anything else. A few problems caught my eye, but most of them were easy (e.g. missing periods) or errors on my part (I assumed that Ammonites was a link to the people of Ammon!), and the only suggestion I have is to cut down the citations. We need to insert a citation at the end of a piece of text that is derived from a certain source, but we don't need to add that citation after every citation. This is not a good reason to reject it, so I'm confident in promoting it regardless; I'm just asking that you check the article and remove the duplicate citations. Nyttend (talk) 06:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I think I got them all. Abyssal (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
The citations look good to me. Yoninah (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Missouri reviewed. Passes the basic DYK criteria (sourced though offline and taken in good faith, newness, length, no signs of copyright infringement). I fixed a few minor MOS issues such as WP:OVERLINKing and went ahead and added an easy to find refs for two claims in the article that appeared unsourced. I echo Nyttend's comment about consolidating citations from the same source but similarly don't feel that issue is worth holding up the nomination. This article at least is good to go. AgneCheese/Wine 01:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Paleontology in New Mexico Reviewed. Did some minor linking fixes, but it is otherwise good. Sources are mostly offline, so AGF for paraphrasing. Sourcing looks solid, good coverage of topic. Tick for New Mexico. The Interior (Talk) 22:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Update from Abyssal: I apologize for my recent inactivity, which I blame on finals and an unexpected surprise at work. Let's just say I had to work 17.5 hours on Christmas day. I'll resume my work here early next week. Abyssal (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oregon will require a slight modification to the hook. Although the source cited states that no dinosaurs lived in the area that is now Oregon, The Dinosauria 2nd edition specifically mentions a hadrosaurid fossil found there; I don't think this is any barrier to DYK; it's already been resolved in the article. The hook just needs to be modified. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I've fixed the hook. Abyssal (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I've been able to verify the hook is correct for all states, using The Dinosauria 2nd Ed., except for the following:
Iowa states that dinosaur fossils have been found in the state, cited to Witzke (2001); the source does not appear to be online.
Minnesota states the same, using the same offline source.
'Louisiana states a dinosaur tooth has been found, citing Schiebout, et al. (2004), which is also apparently not online.
The above-mentioned Oregon issue.
All other states check out as far as the hook is concerned. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Nevada initially reviewed. Mostly looks good, though Shonisaurus as the state fossil is not referenced.--Kevmin § 21:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
  • While looking at something else I came to notice the Paleontology in California section on Indigenous interpretations asserts that fossil acorns found by the Achumawi people are from the species Quercus hiholensis. As I do not have access to Murry 2005 I can't verify this fact, but I am only aware of the species having been reported from the type locality in west central Washington and not in California.--Kevmin § 15:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry I haven't been able to reply sooner; I had misplaced my copy of Murray. Having found it, I can say she definitely refers the acorn fossils to Q. hiholensis (bottom right corner of p. 147). Whether or not that is accurate, I can't say. I'm not a paleobotanist, but then again, neither is Murray. I don't see any reason to doubt it, though. Abyssal (talk) 16:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I do have serious reason to doubt the attribution without any descriptive work accompanying it. As I noted already the species is only known from opalized nuts found in blocks of fossil bog wich was recovered near Yakima Washington. The only descriptive paper on the species is the type description by Borgardt and Pigg 1999.--Kevmin § 19:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I can remove the species attribution and just keep the mention of fossil acorns if that makes you feel less apprehensive, because as noted Murray isn't a paleobotanist. Abyssal (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That would be teh best option I think, given the dubious nature of the attribution.--Kevmin § 21:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Belatedly done. Abyssal (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


  • Oklahoma initial review done. The State fossil claim needs a citation, and at least one of the red linked locations needs a disambiguation fix.--Kevmin § 22:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • This unwieldy hook has created an unaccountable amount of work for DYK -- and I predict that very few people will click on any of the linked articles (much less all of them). Is there any good reason why this couldn't be split into multiple hooks???? --Orlady (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually this hook creates much less work as a single unit than it would have as a series since it saves the need to sort each of the individual hooks into preparation areas separately. I've seen hook nominations for individual articles cause more consternation and fussing that this one has. Also, there are reasons to expect that this hook would do quite well in traffic terms. For one, its unusual number of links will attract extra attention to it. Secondly, dinosaur-related topics have enormous popular appeal. Lastly the local nature of the links will give our many America visitors personal interest in the subject as I think many will be curious about what kinds of fossil discoveries are known from their local area. Abyssal (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
It is probably less work to review all these nominations as a batch, but I really don't think putting them all in one hook is a good idea. Hooks work best when they prompt readers to click on the bolded articles. That won't be the case here. Readers don't have infinite attention spans. They will at most click on two or three. Splitting into groups of 4-5 would work better, highlighting something of interest each time. Even then, attention spans will dip. If I had set out to write all these articles, I would have aimed to only put 10-15 up for DYK, and only the ones with the most interesting or quirky hooks. Trying to get them all on DYK kind of misses the point. It may also prompt people to try and break some sort of multi-hook 'record', which also misses the point. Carcharoth (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Suggested split:
ALT1 (part 1):... that within the United States, dinosaur fossils have been found in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Wyoming?
ALT1 (part 2):... that dinosaur fossils have been found in every U.S. state except Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin?
I personally don't mind the current hook, but if people are worried about reader attention spans, then we could run these two hooks separately. FallingGravity (talk) 23:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I oppose splitting. I've never expected viewers to click every link, I generally expect them to click only their home state, and maybe one or two more they have personal connections to or are idly curious about, which is about what would happen anyway even if we split it up. Abyssal (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with people not clicking on every link... what's the big deal? They'll click on one or two of them. It's not as if Wikipedia gets paid per click. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Then it would be more honest to say "Did you know that we have a series of new articles on palaeontology in the United States by individual states? If you want to read about palaeontology in particular states, go to this list and select the articles that interest you." It is (moderately) interesting to see the topic split up by state like this, but that strikes me more as a quirky/popularising approach (similar to the state fossil and state dinosaur things), but the meat of the educational content and learning about a topic would come at a different level (i.e. the parent articles, or the one about the geologic regions, strata, fossil beds, and eras) rather than an artificial division by states. On a practical level, how many other hooks would fit in alongside this one in the template? There must come a point when a multi-article hook will exceed the size of the template. This one doesn't quite reach that, but as it contains 53 articles that is nearly twice as many as the previous largest one (30 articles). So some co-ordination with those that prepare the hook sets may be needed. Carcharoth (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
This hook fits the template fine with two other hooks. Abyssal (talk) 23:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I have to admit that Carcharoth makes some persuasive points. It is a bit of a disservice to the reader (and really to the effort put into this articles themselves) to have all these articles crammed together into one mega-hook. As I've been reading and review some of these articles, I've been a little sadden knowing that most of the interesting facts and details (such as the various Native American stories about the fossils) from these articles would likely be overlooked by Main Page readers. To that extent we really would be failing our readers in not putting forth the most interesting hooks we can, especially since we have such a treasure trove of potential material throughout these articles. AgneCheese/Wine 00:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I tend to think that readers will generally be interested in individual states selectively so splitting would just determine when each individual article gets its traffic rather than how much. Abyssal (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I think this is a disservice to the individual articles and I would suggest the reviewed states be split out into separate hooks that can be run now. There are still unreviewed articles and article with questions that need to be addressed, but this should not be holding up the rest of the articles.--Kevmin § 21:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
IMO, a 54-article hook only serves the purpose of making the DYK Stats page; it will not draw in readers past the first few links to "dinosaurs" and "being found". I support Carcharoth's proposal to split the nominations into two logical hooks. Yoninah (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I see no point in splitting this into two hooks. It's frankly uglier as two than as one. Either this should have been split into a great many hooks, with interesting facts about similar states, as argued elsewhere, or it should go in one enormous hook and be done with. If this should go otherwise, note that the part two hook, which will presumably run on a different day or why else split them, cannot use the image nor bold the first three articles, since they will have already run with part one. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The lead in History of Paleontology in the United States and the history section in Paleontology in the United States overlap quite a bit because they both serve the same purpose; a relatively short, broad overview of the history of paleontology in the United States. The similarities also exist in part because they were originally one article, but it was so long I had to split it. I feel that history is too important to neglect in the Paleontology in the United States article, which can't really include much about ongoing research because Wikipedia requires reliable published sources, which by definition won't exist until the research concludes and becomes... a part of history. :P Abyssal (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • OK, I see your point. Offline hook ref AGF. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Paleontology in California reviewed. New enough, long enough, adequately sourced. Offline hook ref AGF. However, the second paragraph under "Indigenous interpretations" needs at least one footnote per Rule D2. Yoninah (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oops! I'll have to check my source this evening. Abyssal (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Citation added. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Citation added. Good to go. Yoninah (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
[edit]

Here is a wrap-up of where we stand on each article, with ticks indicated for articles approved (see reviews above). Yoninah (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  • What's happening here? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Alright... if push comes to shove we can either unbold the two or remove the troublesome information. This has been held up for over two months now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll finish everything tonight. Abyssal (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Everything checks out and I am happy to announce that this record-breaking hook is good to go! Yoninah (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Paleontology_in_the_United_States&oldid=1031309072"