Template:Did you know nominations/Thomas J. Shusted

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Thomas J. Shusted[edit]

(
)
1868 mounting of New Jersey's state dinosaur; present consensus sees this bipedal depiction of Hadrosaurus as inaccurate
1868 mounting of New Jersey's state dinosaur; present consensus sees this bipedal depiction of Hadrosaurus as inaccurate
  • ... that at the suggestion of a group of fourth-graders, John A. Rocco and Thomas J. Shusted introduced legislation that made Hadrosaurus foulkii (pictured) New Jersey's official state dinosaur? Source: ""Extinction With Distinction Hadrosaurus' Evolution As The State Dinosaur Can Be Traced To A Fourth-grade Classroom In Westmont." "Hadrosaurus foulkii - the creature's full title - was named New Jersey's state dinosaur.... The students began their campaign by writing letters to members of Congress. Each new fourth-grade class wrote more letters to politicians. The students urged State Assemblyman John Rocco and Assemblyman Thomas Shusted to sponsor the dinosaur bill. They did, and the bill passed the General Assembly in January 1990. But time ran out in the legislative session.... Yesterday, 95 of the fourth- to seventh-grade students attended the bill- signing ceremony in the rotunda at the Statehouse and heard Florio make the official announcement."
    • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link], or briefly cite, the source)

Created by Alansohn (talk). Self-nominated at 03:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC).

 • No issues found with article, ready for human review.

    • ✓ This article is new and was created on 20:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 4962 characters
    • ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
    • ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
    • ✓ A copyright violation is unlikely according to automated metrics (4.8% confidence; confirm)
      • Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.

 • No overall issues detected

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 20:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

  • The article is fine – long enough, new enough, and neutral. I don't agree with the bot on ALT1 but that's a bot issue. Subject is clearly notable, references are properly formatted and sufficient to support the article. QPQ done, Earwig is happy. I have made a couple of tweaks for italicising / formatting. Image is public domain given it is from 1800s, suitable for article, clear at small size, and with roll-over text as required.
  • The only issue I have is with the hook. The reference cited mentions co-sponsoring the bill, not introducing it. This reference from the article confirms introducing, so I would suggest (a) adding it as a cross-ref for the introduction statement, and (b) editing the hook to show co-introducing with John A. Rocco, perhaps something like "... John A. Rocco and Thomas J. Shusted ..." I can't put this as a new hook and give a tick, so I make a suggestion for Alansohn to consider and comment on.
EdChem (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@EdChem:, "introduced" was changed to "co-sponsored". Alansohn (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
@Alansohn: It's entirely up to you. I will give the "co-sponsored" version the tick, if you like, but I think it is a much weaker hook. A bill can have hundreds of co-sponsors but Rocco and Shusted introduced it - i.e. initiated it - which is a stronger and (to me) more interesting claim. That they initiated it is true, so to make that claim just requires adding the relevant ref to the relevant sentence. With that ref in place, we could go with that "Rocco and Shusted introduced" or "Rocco and Shusted sponsored" (as opposed to co-sponsored). I mention Rocco as implying Shusted acted alone is inaccurate, but I suppose an argument can be made for "Shusted sponsored" as more than one sponsor is routine. The introduction is usually a single individual unless stated otherwise. Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 13:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Alansohn: I was always comfortable with "introduced," my concern is whether the hook should imply that Shusted alone did it by not mentioning Rocco. What I am suggesting is something like "... that at the suggestion of a group of fourth-graders, Thomas J. Shusted and John A. Rocco introduced legislation that made Hadrosaurus foulkii (pictured) New Jersey's official state dinosaur?" – what do you think? EdChem (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
known bones
  • I have no problems with the article or the hook, I do however have issues with the selected image. Hadrosaurus foulkii is only known and described from 35 bones, as seen in the image here File:Hadro bones.JPG, and the image currently selected is both outdated in the elements added to complete the skeleton, and in the bipedal stance that hadrosaurs were not capable of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevmin (talk • contribs)
  • Kevmin The picture depicts the first representation of what the hadrosaur looked like, and the fact that the scientific consensus on how it stood has changed is not a matter under discussion here. I've tweaked the caption to reflect your concerns. EdChem, I've added Rocco in to the hook. Alansohn (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Alansohn, I am happy with the hook and have added a wikilink to Rocco. Kevmin, I agree that the image needs to be labelled to make the present view clear. Alansohn has done this, but the caption is far too long now, so we need to find a suitable caption. What about something like:
Mounting of New Jersey's state dinosaur from 1868; the present consensus is that this bipedal depiction of Hadrosaurus is inaccurate.
Thoughts? EdChem (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
EdChem, I have no objection to your briefer caption. Alansohn (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Ready to go, all issues addressed EdChem (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • EdChemAlansohn I still object to the images selected. The 1868 skeleton is not accurate in construction and portrays a stance known in 1990 to be wrong. Go with either a quadrupedal reconstruction or the 35 known bones image, if an image is selected. Using a known to be wrong reconstruction should not be done for a hook revolving around something that happened nearly 125 years after the Waterhouse mount was made.--Kevmin § 06:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Thomas_J._Shusted&oldid=1037983446"