Template:Did you know nominations/Halystina umberlee

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 Allen3 ^talk 15:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Halystina umberlee

(

)

... that the sea snail Halystina umberlee (pictured) was named after the homonymous fictional evil goddess from the Forgotten Realms role-playing game setting?

ALT1:... that a deep-water sea snail (pictured) was named after Umberlee, a fictional evil goddess from the Forgotten Realms role-playing game setting?

Created by Daniel Cavallari (talk). Self nominated at 12:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC).

This looks good. It is new enough, long enough, and definitely interesting. I think Alt1 may be the better hook, but still undecided. I have questions about the citation. I cannot access the journal article, which is a primary source, just published two months ago. Is it noted in the source that this is why the animal was given this name? Is a two month old primary source reference adequate for an encyclopedia entry, on the Main Page? There is possible COI going on here, since Daniel Cavallari wrote the WP article, took and submitted the image, and also wrote the article in the scientific journal describing the new species. That may raise some red flags for the reviewers and at the very least needs to be discussed. —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there Gaff. Well yes, this information is given in the original description on page 542, under the etymology section. Allow me to quote it: "Etymology: The specific epithet is in apposition named after Umberlee, a fictional goddess of the deep sea from the Faerûnian pantheon of the Forgotten Realms campaign setting of the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game.". It is unfortunate that you cannot access the journal, but it still has a DOI (which effectively proves it exists, among other things). Then again, why would a primary source be a problem? Zootaxa is a well-known, reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal. I myself coauthored the paper and described this species. I'm a researcher after all (please check my ORCID on my user page if you feel the need to), which explains how I obtained the image. I've been a wikieditor for over 5.5 years now, and I can't honestly see what's the problem here. I still have the original image, and a PDF copy of the paper if you want to read the full version. What can be done to solve this? --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I recognized that you are the researcher involved (it says so on the caption and licensing for the image, that you described the species). Thanks for providing the quote from the source. Yes, I know what a DOI is and I read the abstract, but could not pull the paper. I've been on Wikipedia for many years (not that it is at all relevant) but only at DYK for a short time and have only reviewed a few submissions. Hence, the excessively cautious approach. Things I do know about WP: it's not the news, it's supposed to be objective (avoiding COI). One could argue that a scientist posting their achievement(s) at DYK might be COI. I don't know. It is obvious that you are a very solid editor and contributor, so I am giving a thumbs up for this DYK, with these caveats noted. I will ask for a second, more experienced editor to sign off. —Gaff ^ταλκ 20:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, this seems completely reasonable for DYK. Correct me if I'm wrong... —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I also think that Alt1 sounds better.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)