Template:Did you know nominations/Updown Girl

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 14:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Updown Girl

(

)

... that archaeologists found that Updown Girl, who was buried in England in the 7th century, had a mixture of West African and European DNA? Source: "One of the most surprising discoveries was the skeleton of a young girl who died at about ten or 11 years of age, found in Updown near Eastry in Kent. She was buried in typical early seventh-century style with a finely made pot, knife, spoon and bone comb. Her DNA, however, tells a more complex story. As well as 67% CNE [continental northern European] ancestry, she also had 33% West African ancestry." https://theconversation.com/updown-girl-dna-research-shows-ancient-britain-was-more-diverse-than-we-imagined-192142
- Reviewed:

Moved to mainspace by Richard Nevell (talk), RLamb (talk), and JSwift49 (talk). Nominated by Richard Nevell (talk) at 21:18, 14 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Updown Girl; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

... New enough, long enough, hook is interesting and in article followed by inline citation to source containing hook fact. Hook short enough. QPQ not required. No copyvio issues. A large section needs citations. Whispyhistory (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell, RLamb, and JSwift49: Can one of you please respond to the above? Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm on it - I've addressed one of the issues and working out how to resolve the other. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720 and Whispyhistory: It was mostly a case of duplicating existing references to make attribution more robust. The last sticking point was how unique Updown Girl is amongst the sample reported in Nature. I have commented it out of the article, essentially removing it. I think it may be correct, but the article and supplementary materials do not explicitly state that Updown Girl's admixture in the same was unique. So to err on the side of caution I've removed the text. Thanks for bringing a fresh pair of eyes to the article, Z1720. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

... Hook is interesting, in the article and followed by an inline citation to reference containing hook. The article is well referenced. QPQ not required (nominator's 2nd nom)Whispyhistory (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)