Template:Did you know nominations/Ulmus okanaganensis

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 HalfGig talk 11:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ulmus okanaganensis

(

)

Ulmus okanaganensis leaf

... that the fossil elm Ulmus okanaganensis (leaf pictured) had been tentatively identified as two other plants before formal description in 2005?

Reviewed: Periclimenes rathbunae

Created by Kevmin (talk). Self-nominated at 16:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC).

New enough, long enough, neutral, verifiable, no close paraphrasing in spot checks or copyvios. Hook is fine in length and interesting. I looked through the sources, and cite #1 clearly supports the hook, as it specifically identifies both previous papers (cites 4 and 5) as referring to material that is now considered this species. Please add a sentence somewhere in the article clearly noting that the paper associated the two past samples with this newly-identified species. Currently, this is only clear via inference, and it seems that you're synthesizing the information based on the way the cites are placed in the article. In reality, the claim is well-supported. This will be an easy pass after that section is altered a bit. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I reworked things a little to make it clearer in the article with citation, how does that look to you @BU Rob13:--Kev min §

@Kevmin: That reword is a bit awkward. I would go with something of the form "After examining both specimens ..." then go on with the stuff about the new identification. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: As I understand Denk and Dillhoff, they did not actually examine more then representiative fossils from the locations in question, and the cited descriptions, so the wording you propose is not true to the source.--Kev min § 03:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Kevmin: Hmm. You have more subject familiarity than I do; we just need something that sounds smooth for the prose. Would "After examining samples from both locations ..." work? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: how does that look?--Kev min § 01:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds better and is true to the source. Good to go. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)