| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Eosalmo
Eosalmo driftwoodensis
- ... that fossils of the salmon Eosalmo (pictured) were dressed in latex that was salted afterwards for study?
- Source: Wilson and Li 1999 Figs 3 & 4 "photos of two black latex casts dusted with ammonium chloride"
- ALT1: ... that the fossil salmon Eosalmo (pictured) likely never migrated to the ocean? Source: Wilson 1996 Life in Stone (pg 216-217) and The Eocene fishes of Republic, Washington (pg 30-31) "The presence of both large and small specimens of Eosalmo found together at some localities in British Columbia also seems to confirm the idea that primitive salrnonids spent their whole lives in fresh water"
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Aquilegia barykinae
- Comment: using the review of Aquilegia amurensis from the nomination for this nomination; 5x expansion started Jan 19th
5x expanded by Kevmin (talk) and Geekgecko (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 364 past nominations.
Kevmin § 18:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC).
- One obvious issue with the main hook; it is grammatically inaccurate. The "was" in-between "tax" and "salted" is clearly meant to be "and". Both hooks are objective, at least. To tell you the truth, the ALT hook is also more interesting, as (although I am not knowledgeable enough in geology to claim) the main hook probably describes the general process of fossil discovery and study. There are strong signs right off the bat in other areas, though.
- It passes the 1,500 new-text minimum with flying colors. The article before the expansion had 1,500 characters. The beginning section alone having 2,400 alone, not counting other sections that are a little longer or half as long as it.
- The image accompanying the hook and the article is free, being self-uploaded and taken by the nominator, an experienced geology photographer.
- The review he is was last month, making it very recent. Given that this is the only nomination of Kevmin's since that review, four more can be done by the user before reviewing another DYK.
- Will review the main article's writing after reading it in depth. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 16:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Nothing serious. May I ask for ref #1 and #2, why the author name has his first name initialed, and the "H." is left out? Also, why is the H in the third ref, which is also partially by this author? Seems inconsistent. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 21:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- The use of latex peels to gain insight into fossils is limited to certain fields of vertebrate paleontology, usually those dealing with small bones/features which will preserve even on compression impression fossils. Its not a well known process and the wording was chosen to be true to the sourcing while evoking images of food dressing or clothing. Several of the fossils (four at least) were treated that way, with the latex peel being removed and the ammonium chloride dust spread on the latex, not the fossil, which is what an "and" in that part of the hook implies.-Kevmin § 22:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Gotcha. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- With regard to the citations and Wilsons initials, I picked up the citations from other wiki articles where differing editors have give different amounts of space to middle name initials (which authors over time are prone to give varying amounts of as well. I have standardized the four citations to M. V. H.--Kevmin § 22:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Interesting. Anyway, good job fixing it! User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- IMPORTANT NOTE:
The review he is was last month, making it very recent. Given that this is the only nomination of Kevmin's since that review, four more can be done by the user before reviewing another DYK.
, this statement is not at all accurate to DYK rules. Once a nominator has 5 or more nominations, EVERY nomination they submit must be accompanied by a QPQ review that is at least in progress or preferably fully followed to success or failure. Its not one QPQ for every 5 nominations as the quoted text implies.--Kevmin § 22:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)- Boy, did I get a different impression from reading that guideline. Could just be me, though. Anyway, thanks for the clarification! User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 22:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- The use of latex peels to gain insight into fossils is limited to certain fields of vertebrate paleontology, usually those dealing with small bones/features which will preserve even on compression impression fossils. Its not a well known process and the wording was chosen to be true to the sourcing while evoking images of food dressing or clothing. Several of the fossils (four at least) were treated that way, with the latex peel being removed and the ammonium chloride dust spread on the latex, not the fossil, which is what an "and" in that part of the hook implies.-Kevmin § 22:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some more comments. So far, the article at least links all of the jargon readers may not understand, and I did understand what was going on thanks it, so readability is good. May I ask for the ALT hook, how what is said in the source supports it? As someone not versed in geology, is there a difference between "fresh water" and in "the ocean" and why being at localities means they probably were not in the ocean?
- There is a great deal of difference between Lake sedimentation, river sedimentation, and ocean sedimentation. The flora, fauna, and rock structures of the fossil sites are all in agreement that the Eocene Okanagan Highlands are a series of upland/mountain lake systems which were the same elevation or higher 50 MYA than they are now. If the fish were Anadromous as most non-trout salmoids are today, we would not find a full range of young juveniles though full adults within the same sediments.--Kevmin § 17:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)