Template:Did you know nominations/Bashunosaurus

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) 02:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Bashunosaurus

  • ... that precise classification of Bashunosaurus is still unknown? Source: Li K., Zhang, Y., and Cai K., 1999. "The Characteristics of the Composition of the Trace Elements in Jurassic Dinosaur Bones and Red Beds in Sichuan Basin". Geological Publishing House.
    • Reviewed:

5x expanded by Atlantis536 (talk). Nominated by Lucluc97 (talk) at 22:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC).

  • As someone whose work on obscure dinosaurs often falls under the radar, I am honored to have this article promoted to DYK. However, I believe the hook is lacking. I suggest it be replaced to
ALT1: ... that Bashunosaurus was first mentioned in a scientific paper in 1989, but was only formally named in 2004? (cited to refs 1 and 3 in the article) Atlantis536 (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Lucluc97: Unfortunately for now I have to reject; the prose size (using User:Shubinator/DYKcheck) is 1100 characters; short of the 1500 minimum. The article would have to also be no longer classified as a stub. I do like Atlantis536's ALT1 if the article can qualify in the future with additional expansion, however. Umimmak (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Note to Atlantis536 and Umimmak: it is still possible to expand the article to be longer than 1500 prose characters and qualify for DYK at the present time. Atlantis536, would this be possible, and how long would it take you to add more material? BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that clarity, BlueMoonset; I wasn’t sure if a subsequent expansion might make it so this no longer qualifies as new enough. Pinging Lucluc97 since it’s their DYK nomination of the article Atlantis536 worked on. Umimmak (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I've just expanded a chunk of the material right now. Is the article at an acceptable length now? Atlantis536 (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Atlantis536, it's now 1899 prose characters, which is above the 1500 minimum required for DYK. Umimmak, since not all nominators or article creators have ways to check the size of their article, we get a fair number that are either below the 1500 minimum, or more frequently, come in short on the 5x expansion, so we let them know of the shortfall and give them the opportunity to expand the article further. Sometimes expansion just isn't feasible, but in this case the article expansion seems to have added useful information to what was already there. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
  • @Lucluc97 and Atlantis536: Okay with the expansion it's long enough and it seems to pass as new enough. Article is neutral in tone, every non-lead paragraph has citations, AGF for copyvio as I don't have access to all of the original articles. I'm rejecting the original hook for not being "hooky", but ALT1 to me seems interesting, is <200 characters, neutral, and properly formatted. This is the nominator's first DYK so no QPQ is needed. No images so those are n/a.
  • What do you think about a hook that clarifies to the reader what Bashunosaurus is? I suppose the suffix makes it obvious, but it might be worth spelling it out?
    ALT1a: ... that the dinosaur Bashunosaurus was first mentioned in a scientific paper in 1989, but was only formally named in 2004?
  • There are some minor MOS things; the article right now has a mix of in-line parenthetical styling and footnotes, consider MOS:FULLNAME and at first mention using their full names. I'd also like to see explicit citations for claims like It was largely ignored in modern literature until Dai et al.'s 2022 description, or that he Dai discussed it at length. Also when you cite an entire book like Li et al 1999, it's nice to have page numbers. And per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT are you citing Hui's 1989 paper or Will Downs's 2001 English translation? Ideally this would be a bit clearer but I don't think any of these are dealbreakers.
  • But more importantly for this DYK, as this is the crux of the hook, I'd really want to see some secondary source says that Kuong's 2004 description made the name available -- especially given Dinosaur Genera List doesn't seem to think so and that Li and colleagues say it became an available name in 1996. I don't have access to Ren et al 2023, do they provide an explicit author citation for the genus? At least as far as I can tell, Dai et al do not provide an explicit author citation for this genus. For this DYK to pass I'd really like to see some paper other than Kuong 2004 cited to say that Kuong 2004 is the paper which made the name available, or that Kuong 2004 is the correct taxonomic authority. I'd also like a secondary source for the claim that Bashunosaurus kaijiangensis first appears as a nomen nudem. At least as I read the link in your source the full name Bashunosaurus kaijiangensis never comes up and Hui doesn't seem to claim this is a new name? Let me know if this makes sense. Umimmak (talk) 06:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I know this is late, but I just added a source confirming the 2004 publishing date for Bashunosaurus (also listing the 1998 proposal as a nomen nudum). Atlantis536 (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I’m not super knowledgeable about paleontology, but I'll WP:AGF about Ford's “Untitled document” on paleofile.com being a reliable source on dinosaur taxonomy. This is ready for a new review. Umimmak (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

 Reviewing... Flibirigit (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article was first expanded on November 26, and nominated within seven days. The length is now adequate after the subsequent expansion. The article is neutral in tone. The hook is interesting to a broad audience, properly mentioned in the article, and accepted by AGF. No images are used in the article. QPQ is not required as the nominator has no DYK credits. Sourcing is good, except for the following question. In the first sentence of the introduction it states, "Bashunosaurus (meaning "Bashun lizard")", but I cannot find a citation for that anywhere in the article. Flibirigit (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I have to confess that the etymology is WP:original research, based on basic Greek and Latin roots, but then again extrapolating that meaning is very easy for dinosaur enthusiasts. Either way, I've removed it from the article, and added a link to Kuang (2004) to aid with verification. Atlantis536 (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. No further concerns. Approving by AGF as per my review above. Flibirigit (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)