Template:Did you know nominations/Orontium wolfei

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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Orontium wolfei

(

)

~~... that fossils of the extinct golden-club Orontium wolfei (pictured) were first identified as possible relatives of bananas and gingers?~~

Reviewed: nomination for review of Paleontology in Nevada (part of Paleontology in the United States multi-nomination hook.)
Comment: See the commentary on Zingiberopsis page 136 of Bogner et al 2007

Created by Kevmin (talk). Self nom at 21:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Length, date verified. Interesting hook; hook's length is fine. Issue1: Couldn't verify hook as couldn't find a sentence mentioning bananas and gingers. ~~Issue2: Paragraph in Description section lacks ref. Issue3: QPQ1 done; but unclear if QPQ2 is done?~~ --Rosiestep (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The sentence is referencing the morphotaxon Zizingberopsis which is part of the order Zingiberales, which also includes gingers and bananas. The description section is now referenced. What second qpq? I have nominated only one article.--Kev min § 09:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the hook issue remains as it doesn't meet a primary DYK requirement: "The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and interesting to a broad audience." Issue2 is resolved; I struck it. Issue3 is my error -- ok to trout me -- I struck it. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

How would you suggest resolution of issue one. I took the inclusion of gingers and bananas as noncontroversial, being that they are both members of the Order Zingiberales. Just as it is uncontroversial that birches are a member of the family Betualaceae. --Kev min § 06:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to proceed, and I don't mean to be obstinate. So would appreciate if another editor would chime in regarding the issue of hook verification. Thanks. --Rosiestep (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

@Kevmin, it's not a question of whether the inclusion is non-controversial. Bananas and gingers are not mentioned in the article. A general reader is not going to know that Zingiberales includes gingers and bananas. You need to say that in the article for the hook to work/be within the rules. It must surely be easy to fix. (I would suggest that the reference to bananas/gingers being Zingiberales should also have an inline citation in the article per "the fact must be mentioned in the article and cited with an inline citation since inline citations are used to support specific statements in an article".) DeCausa (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I dug around and added a link to the Angiosperm phylogeny website, which lists gingers and bananas in the order (under the economic importance section for Zingiberaceae and Musaceae respectively)--Kev min § 19:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Is that an academic's blog? It looks like it. Either this journal article or this Britannica article might be better. DeCausa (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

its not a blog, its the website of the team of botanists that are working on the phylogenetics of angiosperms, and who have published the APG I, II, and III classification systems that are currently used in modern botany.--Kev min § 21:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so that it makes it WP:RS on the basis of it being self-published but by recognized experts in the field. But I've just tried to read the academic paper that the article is based on and i'm afraid someone else more scientifically minded than me needs to take over to finish verification of the hook. I just can't tell if the paper is saying that Orontium wolfei was first thought to belong to Zigiberopsis (and therefore part of the order Zingiberales) or not. It says: "This kind of monocot leaves was determined as Zingiberopsis... However, the specimens described here differ markedly from Zingiberopsis". And that's all it says about the connection with Zingiberopsis. It seems to be saying that leaves of this type (not necessarily Orontium wolfei iself) have in the past been determined to be Zingiberopsis but actually this fossil is something other than Zingiberopsis. I'm not seeing a clear cut sentence that says "Orontium wolfei belongs to Zingiberopsis" or even "Orontium wolfei was originally thought to belong to Zingiberopsis". But I'm not scientifically minded so it's probably me just not getting it - and I think some else needs to take a look.DeCausa (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I'd be inclined to drop the banana/ginger relation. Am reading about Araceae and and musing on another hook. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

ALT1 ... that the pattern of the veins on fossil leaves of the extinct golden-club Orontium wolfei (pictured) confirm it as a member of the arum family?

arums are interesting too... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Since the Zingiberales hook is not going over well, though i think it was a good hook, I am ok with the alt hook. --Kev min § 19:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Article is new enough and long enough. ALT1 is supported by an inline citation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)