Talk:Rhus garwellii

Did you know nomination

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Rhus garwellii leaf fossil

• ... that the fossil sumac Rhus garwellii (leaf pictured) was first described in 2019?

• Reviewed: Bare-shanked screech owl

Created/expanded by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 21:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC).

• The hook is not sourced and the article was created in July without any recent substantial expansion. RPS is 3,538 bytes (563 words). Cannot go forward. No Great Shaker (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Articles created in draft space are counted as new from the point that they are moved from Draft to Article space. This article was moved today, thus it does indeed qualify. @No Great Shaker:. The hook is now sourced to the type description article.--Kevmin § 22:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I missed the move from draft space in the page history so, apologies, it is a new article as of 8 September. Nevertheless, the hook does not carry a source and I'm afraid I do not find the fact interesting.

In saying that the species was first described in 2019, you are merely repeating the name of one of the article's categories: Category:Plants described in 2019. When I first looked at the hook, I did a quick scan of the article to see what the species is and, realising that it is a fossil leaf, I would have expected a fact relating to the leaf's properties or something from the palaeobotany analysis. Stating only the year of the analysis report is like saying of a biographical subject "that so-and-so was born in ccyy". You could say, for example, that the species is known from specimens recovered in the Klondike Mountain Formation or that its name honours the palaeobotanist Gar Rothwell. Equally, although it would be too technical unless carefully reworded, something about the leaf's properties could be used.

I've reviewed the article and have requested extra citations so I cannot pass the nomination as adequately sourced. The hook itself does not have an accompanying source and it is very useful for the reader to have that to hand without needing to search for it in the article so I would like to see the Flynn, DeVore, Pigg source summarised here. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

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

Policy compliance:

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

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - n
• Interesting: - n

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Nomination fails. See comments above and below. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• No, the hook is centered on the year in which this new to science fossil taxon was described (which is stated in the type description as published June 06, 2019). I find the description of a new as of only a year to be very interesting. What exactly do you mean by "its properties?" or "palaeobotany analysis". Do you understand just how often i have been told to change the hooks I present to "fossils of xxx are found/only known/described from YYY location"? No, I will not do that. Per the various discussions in the talk page, hooks should not typically be about people that fail WP notability, which Rothwell fails. what more citations can you provide to use for a species described 14 months ago. The article fully meets WP:ToL, WP:Plants, and WP:Palaeontology guidelines. the hook DOES have an accompanying source.--Kevmin § 20:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The hook has to be interesting to a broad audience and a recent date is not interesting at all. If you have scientific knowledge, you cannot possibly question a term like "properties". For example, one is that it has petioles. The palaeobotany analysis is obviously enough the work done by Messrs Flynn & Co. in describing the taxonomy of the species – you should be able to form a hook based on their findings, subject to the constraint that it might be too technical for the aforesaid broad audience. If you will not change the hook, then I cannot pass it and you must hope that other reviewers will do. Although the hook has a source in the article, which you did not add until after my initial review, it should be summarised here as is usual so that reviewers and readers alike can see at a glance where the information has come from. Furthermore, the article needs additional citations per the tags added and I notice that another editor has had to copyedit it since my last visit. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

What you were meaning was the species description for both "its properties?" or "palaeobotany analysis" (terms that are not used regularly in taxonomic treatments. Please assume good faith that I have a good understanding of the subject matter I am writing about, (as shown by the over 400 articles I have contributed to date). The source was already in the article in a number of places including the sentence directly after the one in question. Wikipedia policy considers all species notable, and accepts that often a new species or rare species may only have a type description as its source. --Kevmin § 18:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed the hook and the article in good faith and I have failed the DYK nomination for the reasons given. That is my last word on this subject. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

• I feel I have in good faith addressed the nomination, so I request another set of eyes.--Kevmin § 21:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
• I agree that the currently proposed hook is not sufficiently interesting. Fossils are discovered all the time, so saying that one was discovered or described in 2019 is not unusual or eye-raising. Perhaps if it was a hook about the circumstances of its discovery, it could have worked instead of simply a hook saying "it was first described in this particular year". The article is fairly long and includes other kinds of information: can't something else based on that be proposed instead? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• Alt1: ... that the type specimens of Rhus garwellii (leaf pictured) can be found in Stonerose?
• Narutolovehinata5 How about Alt1?--Kevmin § 14:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

That's somewhat better than the original proposal but is still rather bland. If you need more suggestions, No Great Shaker gave some above that could be possible starting points. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I have already addressed why I do not want have another of my nominations forced into the xxx fossil is found in yyy location hook. So that is out. Lets try a reword.

Alt2: ... that the home of Rhus garwellii is a Stonerose?

BTW bland to whom?--Kevmin § 15:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

It just doesn't sound like an interesting hook. Perhaps the article just isn't meant to be if there's no other suitable facts that could be used. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'm a little surprised by the bad faith displayed in this review and am happy to do a second review. As a prep builder for many years, I can tell you that we are not out to educate readers through the hook alone. In fact, a "hook" is just that—a means to "reel in" the reader to click on the article. I personally find it interesting that a fossil was discovered last year, so I'd like to go back to ALT0. But I would like to know if there's anything in the source that says it's the first time it was described? Also, it might add some hook interest to say where it was found. Re-posting ALT0 below so we can refer to it more easily.
• ALT0: ... that the fossil sumac Rhus garwellii (leaf pictured) was first described in 2019? Yoninah (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Yoninah 2019 was indeed the first time the specie formally described, with the type description being the paper in which the species name was proposed and first used. There was an earlier paper that discussed the fossil hybrid complex for the Republic sumac fossils, but they were not named yet. We could use the hybridization as a hook as well, I had thought i used it for a hook already, but it appears I haven't!--Kevmin § 17:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kevmin: Do you have an alt in mind? Yoninah (talk) 17:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Possibly this one--Kevmin § 20:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Alt3: ...that the fossil Rhus garwellii (leaf pictured) likely hybridized with the other Klondike Mountain Formation sumac species?

• @Kevmin: I like ALT1, but I don't see the 49 million years fact in the article. I also think it will distract from people clicking on the bolded link. Yoninah (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Yoninah: Good point, Ive been working in the Klondike Mountain Formation article this past week and thought I had the specific date in the Rhus article as well, how about swapping the age with "fossil".--Kevmin § 22:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

• Great, thanks. ALT3 hook ref verified and cited inline. But I would write it this way to separate the blue links (and also add a link):
• ALT3a: ... that the fossil Rhus garwellii (leaf pictured) likely hybridized with the other sumac species in the Klondike Mountain Formation?
• Image is freely licensed. ALT3a good to go. Yoninah (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

ALT3a sounds good too. Giving it my endorsement. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)