Template:Did you know nominations/Paleoserenomyces
- 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 SL93 (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Paleoserenomyces
... that Paleoserenomyces allenbyensis is a fossil tar spot with a parasite?Source: Currah et al. 1998ALT1: ... that the fossil Paleoserenomyces allenbyensis was a palm tar spot?Source: Currah et al. 1998- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Felipes
Created by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 23:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC).
Article is long enough and cited well. GenQuest "scribble" 01:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)- Article newly placed in article space. GenQuest "scribble" 01:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Passes earwig, is neutral, and is well sourced. Meets core policy (exception below). GenQuest "scribble" 02:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
The Greenwood reference (wordpress.com) is self-published and non-RS; can it possibly be replaced? GenQuest "scribble" 02:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)- ALT2 as usable.
Hook not written for broad audience: the Hook wording does not make sense to a casual reader (like me :-) ), especially "...fossil tar spot with a parasite". I have no idea what that means. GenQuest "scribble" 02:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)- Greenwood is not actually self published, its peer-reviewed see here, with the linked version being the official PDF version from the journal.
- I would disagree with your assessment of the hook, and say that the point of a hook is to create curiosity that leads people to click on the article link. If one clicks the link then they will know.--Kevmin § 02:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- Please use a Ref to that source, not wordpress. Wordpress is unusable. (You should have received a warning when you saved the article to mainspace). As far as the hook, the wording is a little too nebulous, and won't drive clicks to it, IMHO. But I'm sure other reviewers will chime in here. GenQuest "scribble" 04:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- see here Again, Greenwood et all is a peer reviewed journal article, published in volume 42, Number 2 of the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences in February 2005. Its a highly cited article for the peer review literature surrounding the Eocene Okanagan Highlands and that has been used in a series of over 20 articles related to that topic on Wiki. The hook will catch the eye of anyone who like fossils, also who gardens or has an interest in botany or mycology as tar spots are a common plant pathogen.--Kevmin § 16:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
- My 2 cents: the use of wordpress here is fine as it appears to be one of the authors hosting the pdf online. It isn't where the paper was originally published, and it's not an illegal mirror, since https://brucearchibald.org/ appears to be an author's personal site. But I do agree with the reviewer in that the hook is too niche. The dyk rules state the hook should be
"likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest"
, which this hook is not. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 01:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- I have to agree with the above comments. The hook needs to be intriguing not just to people who are fascinated with fossils. I'm a huge science buff myself and even I find the two hooks to be too vague and difficult to understand to be intriguing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- I have to note that per the recent discussion, a hook being required to be intriguing to non-specialists is now policy, so if a non-specialist hook cannot be proposed, the nomination may have to be failed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- ALT2: ... that the parasitic fossil fungus Paleoserenomyces allenbyensis was named after a Canadian ghost town?
- Esculenta (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- OK, Great! DYK is ready for Admin review. GenQuest "scribble" 16:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
- I don't have access to the source (I'm not currently in a place with JSTOR access) so I'll just assume good faith here. ALT2 is a much much better hook than the original hooks and is cited inline, and now there is consensus in favor of it I'm approving it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)