Template:Did you know nominations/Weewarrasaurus
- 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 Yoninah (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Weewarrasaurus
[edit]- ... that the first discovered fossil of the dinosaur Weewarrasaurus was noted for being preserved in green-blue opal?
- ALT1:
... that the first discovered fossil of the dinosaur Weewarrasaurus was found in a bag of opals by an opal dealer, and later donated to a museum?
- ALT1:
- Comment: Author exempt from QPQ
Created by Lusotitan (talk). Self-nominated at 00:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- n - Interesting:
QPQ: 
- N/A
Overall: 
It's a neat article and a good summary of the source material. The hooks are interesting but do not quite reflect the two sources used, for example, using words that are found in neither of them. However, that is fixable. Of more concern is that the images used in the article appear to be copyrighted despite the CC 4.0 licences displayed on Wikimedia Commons. However, I am no expert on copyright, so would like a second opinion on that. If we can sort those 2 issues out, I'll do a final check and it should then be good to go. Bermicourt (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm assuming the problematic word in the first hook is "shining", since the paper describes the opalization as "green-blue" in the "Preservation of LRF 3067" section, and it makes it abundantly clear it's talking about the holotype, which is the first discovered specimen (using "type specimen" or "holotype" here might be confusing for general readers, hence the wording change). Regarding "shining", the news article uses "sparkly", and I figured "shining" in this context meant essentially the same thing, so I used a synonym so as to not rip the description straight from another authors hook on the subject. For hook two, "bag of rough opal", "opal dealer", and "...donated to the Australian Opal Center, a Lightning Ridge museum...". Not sure what else in these hooks could be not reflecting the sources, it just leaves "noted" and "found" which are very obviously implied actions in both sources. Regarding the images, I'm reasonably certain all images published through PeerJ papers are good for Wikipedia use, but licensing isn't my strongsuit. Paging IJReid to help clear things up. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Having taking advice here it seems that the images are freely licensed on the original website, so that problem has gone away. However, there are doubts about whether the principle source is WP:RS and also that the discovery is WP:TOOSOON to be accepted in the scientific field. That being the case, we shouldn't really be showcasing it on the main page. So I don't feel able to sign this off, but I've left it as a "maybe" rather than a "no" in order to give other more expert editors an opportunity to comment. Bermicourt (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- I would dispute on both points. Palaeontology is a field of study where quality secondary sources are not available in the vast majority of cases. Published papers are considered the standard for reliable sources in WP:DINO. Regarding it being "too soon", it being preserved in opal is factual. The part that could be not accepted in the field is the existence of Weewarrasaurus as a valid, non-dubious taxon. But if it was considered dubious in a later study, the page would continue existing (dubious species still get their own pages most of the time, like with the relevant Fulgurotherium) and its status as a fossil preserved in opal and found in a bag of them would not change. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:26, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Reviewer has not replied in three weeks and has not commented to rebuttals of their concerns. Anybody else? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 18:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- "Reviewer has not replied in three weeks" because reviewer said in his last comment that he wanted to "give other more expert editors an opportunity to comment". Please read what has gone before. Bermicourt (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but that still leaves this in need of a new reviewer. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:51, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
This interesting article is new enough and long enough. The original reviewer raised several concerns but in my experience at DYK, the things raised are not problematic. I have removed the word "shining" from the original hook because it is not mentioned in the article, but otherwise the hook is fine, the article is neutral and seems to be free of policy issues. I am not approving ALT1 because it does not mention in the article that the Australian Opal Center is a museum. No QPQ required. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- "Reviewer has not replied in three weeks" because reviewer said in his last comment that he wanted to "give other more expert editors an opportunity to comment". Please read what has gone before. Bermicourt (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
