Template:Did you know nominations/Magnesiopascoite

The following discussion 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Magnesiopascoite

(

)

... that while magnesiopascoite was discovered in Utah, the type specimens are held at a museum in California?

Reviewed: The Little Guy

Created/expanded by Chris857 (talk). Self nom at 23:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

solid article, offline source accepted AGF, I am no expert but trust. The hook is interesting, but how do you feel about telling/teaching us a bit more:

ALT1: ... that while the mineral magnesiopascoite was discovered in Utah ~~in 2008~~, the two cotype specimens are held at a museum in California? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I like the alt, but I would trim the '2008' because it doesn't really relate to the mineral being in California. How about ALT2: ... that while the mineral magnesiopascoite was discovered in Utah, the two cotype specimens are held at a museum in California? Chris857 (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Article is new enough and long enough. Although the hook fact is sourced to a journal I can't access, two online sources cited in the article confirm its validity. I took the liberty of editing the original hook to change "specimens" to "type specimens" and add a link. The original hook and ALT2 are fine. ALT1 isn't, because there is no indication that the mineral was discovered in 2008. That's the date when it was first described in a publication; the discovery almost certainly happened earlier. --Orlady (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)