Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Acer smileyi, Acer nipponicum

< Template:Did you know nominations
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. 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) 22:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Acer smileyi, Acer nipponicum edit

( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)

Leaf of Acer nipponicum

  • Reviewed: Jasus caveorum
  • Comment: Recreated nomination with link to correct extinct maple. See page 76 of Wolfe and Tanai in the discussion section of A. smileyi for hook fact.

Created/expanded by Kevmin (talk). Self nom at 20:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

  • You are correct.--Kevmin § 21:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Date, ref and lengths are good for both. The hook is confirmed. However, why does the citation lead to a tertiary source regarding the secondary source. We are suppose to use secondary sources. I think this is the second time I have run into taxonomic use of tertiary sources as references.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Im not sure what your meaning by tertiary source in this case. Are you talking about the type description of the species?--Kevmin § 13:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The secondary source is the .pdf that includes summary of primary data like direct measurement and observation.
  • A tertiary source is something that summarizes/reviews the secondary source, like Wikipedia or in this case the web page that you link to in the reference. WP is not suppose to use tertiary sources as references. You are suppose to use the .pdf link in the reference not a link to a tertiary source about it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Niether of the sources I used are Tertiary websites though, both are peer reviewed papers published in journals. Thus I am confused by your reference to Wolfe & Tanai as Tertiary.--Kevmin § 05:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I am confused now, as from what I remember when creating the article's, I linked to free pdf's of the peer reviewed papers (A primary and a secondary source respectively), and this is born out by the links in the reference section going to the paper (A. nipponicum) or the website that hosts the pdf for download (A. smileyi). --Kevmin § 06:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
You link here, which is not the .pdf (2ndary source). It is a summary of some sort of the secondary source with a link to it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
That is the abstract page, a common page to find for scientific papers, see the results for taxa articles in Google scholar. --Kevmin § 07:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe that linking to an abstract of a secondary source is still linking to a tertiary source.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Really? Most taxon articles like to abstracts of papers cited if the paper itself is not available. Also most abstracts are written by the authors of the papers and included at the beging of said papers, and thus are if anything primary sources as are the papers. Does the linking of the references to the parimary abstracts cause problems with the veracity of the article or the DYK nomination?--Kevmin § 02:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
If the paper is available (as is the case here) do you think you should link the reader to the paper or its abstract?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The paper itself is a download (depending on the browser being used). I think it is correct to link to the abstract an allow the user the option of the download if they choose to. The information in the article and the nomination are verified.--Kevmin § 02:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I use 5 different browser. Can you clarify your point about the browsers.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I use google chrome, and at least with the default settings of GC the pdf is not opened in a separate window but is treated as a download. I do not know how IE or FF treat it. --Kevmin § 05:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
  • As the comments do not seem to affect the nomination.--Kevmin § 23:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I dont see that it matters if the article is linked to the abstract (which I cannot, the pdf link is to a download), abstracts are written by the author/s of the papers, and included at the beginning of hte paper.--Kevmin § 00:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The formatting I have used has never been called into question, and is used widely in the biology articles on WP.--Kevmin § 01:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Most of the above discussion appears to be irrelevant to DYK. Both articles qualify on length and newness and appear to be adequately supported by footnotes. I did not identify any evidence of "plagiarism". Hook fact is, in general, supported. However, the morphological basis for taxonomic classification does not necessarily indicate close kinship. Accordingly, I believe it needs to be reworded for accuracy:
ALT1 looks good to me.--Kevmin § 09:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Acer_smileyi,_Acer_nipponicum&oldid=1189644576"