A fact from Paleoserenomyces appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 December 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the parasitic fossil fungus Paleoserenomyces allenbyensis was named after a Canadian ghost town?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
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)reply
Passes earwig, is neutral, and is well sourced. Meets core policy (exception below).
GenQuest"scribble" 02:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The Greenwood reference (wordpress.com) is self-published and non-RS; can it possibly be replaced?
GenQuest"scribble" 02:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
I can live with alt2 as well.--
Kevmin§ 15:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
OK, Great! DYK is ready for Admin review.
GenQuest"scribble" 16:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
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)reply
A fact from Paleoserenomyces appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 December 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that the parasitic fossil fungus Paleoserenomyces allenbyensis was named after a Canadian ghost town?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
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)reply
Passes earwig, is neutral, and is well sourced. Meets core policy (exception below).
GenQuest"scribble" 02:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
The Greenwood reference (wordpress.com) is self-published and non-RS; can it possibly be replaced?
GenQuest"scribble" 02:25, 9 December 2022 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
I can live with alt2 as well.--
Kevmin§ 15:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
OK, Great! DYK is ready for Admin review.
GenQuest"scribble" 16:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)reply
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)reply