Template:Did you know nominations/Phaceloolithus
- 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) 06:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Phaceloolithus
[edit]- ... that Phaceloolithus is a type of fossil egg known to be from the Cretaceous period because of the kinds of shrimp found at the same site?
- Not exactly in article - Ostracods aren't referred to as shrimp. ?. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK, I put a parenthetical reference to them as shrimp into the article. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 03:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not exactly in article - Ostracods aren't referred to as shrimp. ?. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- ALT1:... that Phaceloolithus is a kind of fossil egg found in Hunan, China?
- Weird phrasing. "Found in" would be better; Hunan wasn't an entity at the time, and it may have existed elsewhere. ? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- I fixed the phrasing. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 03:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Weird phrasing. "Found in" would be better; Hunan wasn't an entity at the time, and it may have existed elsewhere. ? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- ALT2:... that the fossil egg family Dendroolithidae may in fact be a synonym of Phaceloolithidae?
- I'm a little uncomfortable with promoting a DYK whose fact basically reduces to "we don't know if..." ? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- I can understand that. It seems to me that the most interesting aspect of Phaceloolithus is the potential synonymy of Phaceloolithidae and Dendroolithidae, but if the uncertainty means it won't work for a hook, that's fine. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 03:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm a little uncomfortable with promoting a DYK whose fact basically reduces to "we don't know if..." ? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Reviewed: Rafaelnymphes
5x expanded by Ashorocetus (talk). Self-nominated at 06:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC).
- Any chance of another go at a DYK hook? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- OK, Here's a couple more if my work for ALT0 and ALT1 is insufficient. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 03:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- ALT3:... that Daniel Barta argued against synonymizing the fossil egg families Phaceloolithidae and Dendroolithidae because Phaceloolithidae has not been thoroughly described?
- ALT4:... that Phaceloolithus is a type of nearly spherical fossil egg that can be over 16 centimetres (6.3 in) across?
- Any chance of another go at a DYK hook? Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- ALT4 or ALT0 seem the best.
Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
