Jump to content

Talk:Oise amber

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
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)[reply]

(
)

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

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

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

@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)[reply]
@Onegreatjoke: Fixed. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 00:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that's better. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

I have struck some inaccurate hooks per conversation on the talk page. TSventon (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
I've fixed the article according to @TSventon:. Pinging @Onegreatjoke:. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 00:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am now happy with the article fixes. TSventon (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Onegreatjoke:. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 00:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Approving again. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Questions

[edit]

Helloheart, a few questions and comments. I am reading the article and sources without specialist knowledge.

  • "both types of amber have similar geographic origins" I can't find this in the source, do you mean geological?
  • two amber-rich deposits were discovered" I can't find this in the source, what was the other one?
  • "produced by an angiosperm of the family Fabaceae" this should be combined with Hymenaea oblongifolia sentence
  • "amber can be found" the sites are no longer accessible per David Penney 2010, page 140
  • who is De Franceschi?
  • "diversity of vertebrate fauna in Oise amber. Dental and skeletal remains". I think this relates to the amber containing strata, not the amber itself
  • "coprolites have been found in Oise amber" again, I think this relates to the amber containing strata.

TSventon (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @TSventon:: and here are answers to your questions:
  • No, I mean geographic. (See page 143, the second-to last paragraph)
  • I can't find it in the source as well (which also mentions De Franceschi), but one of the other sources has it. Changing.
  • Combining.
  • It should work now.
  • I am not sure. It never mentions their first name (if they have any) in the citation. See the source and search for "De Franceschi" in the search box on the bottom left-hand side. We may want to remove that until it's clear who he is.
  • Yes, the source does say that. Fixing.
  • Fixing.
‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 04:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helloheart, more comments.

  • 1 Thank you, the source says "geographical origins", but I am still not sure what that means, can you explain? I would suggest adding page numbers to book references by using Template:Rp.
  • 2 The article says that de Ploeg discovered Charentes amber and that Charentes amber is found in the Oise valley, which the source doesn't support.
  • 3 I think "angiosperm of the family Fabaceae" could be omitted. The full classification is apparently Plantae, Tracheophytes, Angiosperms, Eudicots, Rosids, Fabales, Fabaceae, Detarioideae, Detarieae, Hymenaea.
  • 4 I have changed sediments "can be found" to amber "were found" as the sites are no longer accessible
  • 5 Both De Franceschi and Jean Jossang should probably be omitted as Wikipedia mentions researchers sparingly, see e.g. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Chemistry#Attributions to people and places. Jossang is probably male, see Jean (male given name).
  • 6 I have adjusted this further
  • 7 Now OK. TSventon (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon:
  • 1 I think that means that both ambers come from a similar location.
  • 2 Yes, now that I look at it, it seems that the ambers were discovered at the same time... but not in the same place. Changing.
  • 3 Removed.
  • 5 Removed. The only Jeans I've met were female. Whoops.
‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 00:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Helloheart:, everything looks fine now, I have done some more copy editing and reworded a sentence which was very similar to one in the NYT article. TSventon (talk) 06:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection request

[edit]

Given the high frequency of IP vandals on this rather obscure topic, semi-protection is requested.--Kevmin § 18:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oise_amber&oldid=1205781829"