Template:Did you know nominations/Paraelongatoolithus
- 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 Jolly Ω Janner 03:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Paraelongatoolithus[edit]
- ... that a 94 million year old fossil egg from Zhejiang was given the name Paraelongatoolithus by paleontologists in 2010?
- ALT1:... that Paraelongatoolithus is a kind of fossil egg that was discovered in 2010 in Tiantai County, Zhejiang?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hurricane Danny (2015)
5x expanded by Ashorocetus (talk). Self-nominated at 07:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC).
Article expansion is recent enough and the prose parts are long enough. Article seems neutral to me. Lead needs sourcing as does part of the third paragraph. AGF on the first source as I can't read Chinese, although the third one (which appears to refer to the first one too) supports some of its material. I am not sure if I can find the "cone"/"columnar" layer though. Excluding the Chinese parts which I can't read, seems like none of the material is copied/closely paraphrased/plagiarized by manual analysis or by copyviotools. QPQ is done. First hook needs article link bolded. Both hooks are short enough and suitably sourced, but somewhat bland.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review. The Chinese source does mention the cone and columnar layer, even in the English summary at the end. Here's an ALT2 that's hopefully less bland: Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 03:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- ALT2:... that even though the fossil egg Paraelongatoolithus has not been found with embryos or parents, it is thought to be an oviraptorosaur because of its similarity to other oviraptorosaur eggs?
- @Ashorocetus: Remaining paras now sourced. The closing reviewer may pick the hook. That said, the English part of the Chinese paper does not seem to contain the year numbers.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Yeah, the history section is from the first paragraph of the Chinese part of the Chinese paper. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Since I forgot:
on both hooks, the approving reviewer can pick which one to use.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Since I forgot:
