Template:Did you know nominations/Egg fossil

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 Allen3 ^talk 22:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Egg fossil, Timeline of egg fossil research, Cephalopod egg fossil, Fish egg fossil, Reptile egg fossil, Dinosaur egg, Egg paleopathology[edit]

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

)

... that paleontologists have discovered the fossilized eggs of cephalopods, fishes, and reptiles, with some dinosaur eggs (pictured) being preserved with pathological shell deformities?

Comment: I request some reviewer patience; some of these articles have some kinks to work out. I had to move quickly to nominate because User:Ashorocetus created one of these articles without realizing that I had been working on this article series in user space for some time. I think I have a back log of DYK reviews we can use for QPQ purposes. Abyssal (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Created/expanded by Abyssal (talk), Ashorocetus (talk). Nominated by Abyssal (talk) at 17:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC).

Timeline of egg fossil research: New enough, long enough, fully referenced.
fossilized eggs: Threadbare, but new and long enough.
Cephalopod egg fossil: New enough, long enough, fully referenced.
Fish egg fossil: New enough, long enough, fully referenced.
Reptile egg fossil: New enough, long enough, fully referenced.
dinosaur eggs: New enough, long enough, fully referenced.
Egg paleopathology: New enough, long enough, fully referenced. Can you get rid of the orphan tag?
Egg taphonomy: New enough, long enough, fully referenced. AGF on sources.
Image: Taken in the UK, where there is Freedom of Panorama, so good.
Hook: AGF on offline source.
QPQ: Need six QPQs.
Overall: Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

OOPS. My expansion of dinosaur egg, which was finished within 2 days of the nomination, was forgotten to languish in userspace. I've mainspaced it. Abyssal (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Set that one to good. Fix up the fish eggs and provide the QPQs. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've done some work on the fish eggs. Abyssal (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Needs a review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- All it needs is QPQs. Otherwise okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  - For some reason one of the articles didn't make it's way into the nomination. It's up there in bold. Here are the QPQs, including one for Egg taphonomy:

Good to go! Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hawkeye7, can you please confirm/indicate that you've reviewed the new Egg taphonomy article, which was a late addition to the nomination and does not have an individual tick above? I'm hesitant to promote this without that specific confirmation, especially since a quick look at the article shows that all of the inline citations come from a single source. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The stuff about the gull eggs and volcanic ash pH can be attributed to the second source. Let me tweak the article. Abyssal (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Good to go then. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Issues noted in WT:DYK on excessive citations in Dinosaur eggs—the same citation used for many sentences in a row, instead of letting them run—which has led to a copyedit template being added to the page. The article has other issues as well: there is a "citation needed" template that needs to be taken care of in the Paleobiology section—the first paragraph is uncited, and all paragraphs should be. Citations are also needed for the first paragraph of History and the first two of the three bullet points after the first paragraph of the Classification section (unless there's a citation that could go at the end of that paragraph that covers the subsequent list). If there's an overall citation that can cover the Embryos subsection, that would be helpful. Other articles:

Egg fossil should have a citation for the Dinosaur eggs section.
Timeline of egg fossil research appears to be have repetitive cites in 1979 and 1991, but that's all I've noticed.
Cephalopod egg fossil has the same copyedit tag as Dinosaur eggs for the same reason.
Fish egg fossil has one extra cite in a row; not a big deal.
Reptile egg fossil might have one extra cite; the issues here is that there are errors showing up in the reference section that need to be dealt with.
Egg paleopathology has the same copyedit tag as Dinosaur eggs for the same reason. Can anything be done about the orphan tag? Egg fossil does link here now; can any others?
Egg taphonomy has the same copyedit tag as Dinosaur eggs for the same reason.

Please check back in when these issues are settled; it would be nice to get this approved again. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll get on this within the next couple of days. Abyssal (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of egg fossil research should be good. Abyssal (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Cephalopod egg fossil should be good. Abyssal (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Fish egg fossil and Reptile egg fossil should be good. Abyssal (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Egg paleopathology and egg taphonomy should be good. Abyssal (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It would have been nice to have a dinosaur egg on the front page, but I am getting really, really close to closing this nom down. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll finish fixing the last two articles on Monday. Abyssal (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Everything should be set now. Abyssal (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

All issues addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I was very specific about what needed to be addressed in Dinosaur eggs, and only the copyedit template has been addressed. Everything else remains to be done, notably the citation needed template, and the unsourced paragraphs and list entries. Please take care of these right away. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that another issue needed addressing in Dinosaur eggs: the final two paragraphs of both the "Scanning electron microscopy" and "X rays" sections are identical. Please figure out which section they belong to, remove it from the other, and remove the extra blank line separating the paragraphs from earlier ones in the section. Hawkeye7 and I have added citation needed templates as appropriate. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate section deleted. Redundant citations removed. Embryo section cited. Will finish the other citations in a few minutes. Abyssal (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Should be good now. Abyssal (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Dinosaur eggs article edits have addressed all the concerns I mentioned earlier: duplicative citations have been removed, missing citations have been added, duplicate paragraphs deleted, plus additional editing has been done to improve the article. The other articles approved as well; the issues I noted originally for each have all been addressed. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be some direct copying from sources in Dinosaur egg: compare for example "The first real discovery of dinosaur eggshell was in 1859 from southern France, by Jean Jacques Pouech. Due to their large size, the French eggs were at first thought to belong to giant birds. More complete eggs were found in 1869 by Matheron. He, in turn, believed these eggs were those of a giant crocodile.[5] In 1877, Paul Gervais published the first detailed study of the eggs, and suggested that they could belong to a dinosaur. They are now known to have been laid by the sauropod dinosaurHypselosaurus.[1]" with "The first real discovery of dinosaur eggshell was in 1859 from southern France, by Jean Jacques Pouech. The French eggs were thought to belong to giant birds at first, because of their large size. More complete eggs were found in 1869 by Matheron. He thought these eggs belonged to a giant crocodile. In 1877 Paul Gervais (1816-79) published the first detailed study of the eggs, and suggested that they could belong to a dinosaur. They are now known to have been laid by the sauropod dinosaur Hypselosaurus." This is especially concerning given that while FN1 is the source for all of this content, FN5 (in the middle of the copied material) is a different, offline source. Given the scope of that single event, the rest of this article and possibly the others need to be checked for similar issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The same problematic paragraph appears in egg fossil. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I want to emphatically state that those paragraphs aren't my own work. Can we proceed with the nomination just without the plagiarized content (which, again, I had nothing to do with)? I've done more than enough for each article to pass DYK on its own merits. Abyssal (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and you can relax about footnote 5. :) Although that sentence was written by a previous editor based on who knows what source, I cited that sentence to Carpenter 1999 because the fact can indeed be verified there. Carpenter 1999 was not the source of the initial plagiarism and its widespread use throughout these articles is my own work, not the plagiarist's. Abyssal (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, without the problematic content (which includes a couple other sentences in addition to the paragraph above), egg fossil is not long enough to qualify - we would need to either expand it or remove it from the hook. I'm also not comfortable approving dinosaur egg without further checking, as it's quite possible there is more content there that isn't original to Wikipedia. I haven't checked the other articles so can't comment on whether they're good to go as-is. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm plenty willing to fill in any gaps left by the removal of the plagiarism. Egg fossil was just barely long enough from the beginning, rewriting it to be long enough despite the removal of the plagiarism would be simple. The articles apart from Egg fossil and Dinosaur egg were written exclusively by myself with no input from the plagiarist (newbie User:Ashorocetus). Abyssal (talk) 21:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Giving this a slightly less dire icon so it isn't closed prematurely while Abyssal is working. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Moonie! >:D Abyssal (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll be rewriting Egg fossil offline over the weekend. Abyssal (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, check out Egg fossil. I've rewritten most of it, but some of the original content seemed safe from the plagiarism and was preserved. Abyssal (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I've cleared up most of the plagiarism in Dinosaur egg and rewrote some of the content. All it needs are some citations and to rewrite the introduction, which I can handle tomorrow morning. Abyssal (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've revamped Dinosaur eggs. Everything should be all set now for this nomination. Abyssal (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Egg fossil now has enough original content, but is missing attribution for sections copied from other Wikipedia articles. Dinosaur eggs has some concerning passages with regards to close paraphrasing: compare for example "The absence or rarity of pores on stomach stones' surfaces are hints to their true nature" with "The absence or scarcity of pores on the surface is a giveaway as to their true nature". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary." I was the sole contributor of the copied passages. Also they were pretty heavily retooled to integrate with the new article. I'll get to rephrasing the problematic content today and tomorrow. Abyssal (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The version used appears to have been edited by at least one other person, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Appropriate links are now in place for the copied sections. I'm working on reworking the text of dinosaur egg. Abyssal (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Work is still actively ongoing addressing this nomination. I beg patience of the reviewers as I work 12 hour shifts on the weekends and am also studying for a summer organic chemistry course final coming up in the very near future. Abyssal (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Did some more today. Abyssal (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Work is progressing nicely. Abyssal (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, I haven't forgotten this. Last week I was finishing a tough organic chemistry course. Had to pull an all-nighter and still just squeaked by with a C. Spent the past week doing finishing major home renovations that needed done. Tomorrow I'll be able to get back on this and I was almost done anyway, so things should move along rather quickly from hereout. Thanks for your patience. This will be a great DYK for the main page. :) Abyssal (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I've finished the revamp of Dinosaur egg. Abyssal (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Much better. There are, however, a few more points of concern. Specifically, the paragraph on insect trace fossils is still a bit close to the source, as are the last two paragraphs of the main Taphonomy section; I've stopped there for now. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I have some free time tomorrow. I should have it done by then. Abyssal (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I got on the ball and addressed your specific concerns today. I still have that free time to work on this tomorrow, so if you have time and want to look for specific concerns to address at that time, then have at it. :D If not I'll still use that time for a more general polishing until I hear back from you. Thanks so much for your help with this frustratingly long-running and dramatic nomination! These articles have benefitted alot from being subject to your fine toothed comb and I think that once this makes it to the main page a round of wikibeers for all parties involved would be just what the doctor ordered. >:D Abyssal (talk) 00:58, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Getting there...first paragraph of Excavation and the Acid dissolution section are next to need paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Cleaned up those paragraphs. Abyssal (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

And I think we are now finally good to go in terms of the paraphrasing in this article. AGF tick because I didn't recheck the other articles or DYK criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)