- 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 Victuallers (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Timeline of ankylosaur research[edit]
... that for decades of the history of ankylosaur research these armored dinosaurs (example pictured) were considered members of the related but distinct group Stegosauria?
Created by Abyssal (talk). Self-nominated at 15:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC).
- Review by AshLin
- New enough!
- Long enough!
- Issue One - Nine "disambiguation needed" links need attention. May please resolve so that I can proceed further after that. @Abyssal: AshLin (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Full review needed now that the one issue has been resolved. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Completing review as this one has been sitting for a couple of weeks. The tags have now been resolved, and to add to the previous review, the article is fully cited with the hook fact cited to an offline source, so taking good faith on that. QPQ has been completed, image has an appropriate permission. So this is good to go. Miyagawa (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm really confused as to what the hook means. My gut feeling is it could be simplified, but I'm not sure how. As it stands, it jars a bit too much on the queue so I've pulled it back into review pending improvements. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- I edited this hook when I promoted it to the prep area and what you pulled was actually ALT1, which was what I came up with. It is easy to criticise the efforts of others, so why don't you suggest a better hook yourself? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
- ALT1
... that during research into ankylosaurs, these armored dinosaurs were, for decades, considered to be members of the related but distinct group Stegosauria?
- To be honest, I like the original a lot more, but if this rephrasing satisfies @Ritchie333: I'm will to let it pass or attempt to rephrase it again. Abyssal (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- ALT1
- Abyssal, ALT1 is what Ritchie333 pulled in the first place—it was Cwmhiraeth's edit of the original hook when she promoted this to prep, and Ritchie333 didn't like it. I've struck it, and the original as well. I'd like to suggest that you come up with an ALT2 hook, either new or another rephrasing; the original's "decades of the history of ankylosaur research" phrasing strikes me as clunky, which I imagine is why Cwmhiraeth tried to clean it up in the first place. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Alt 2: ... that ankylosaur paleontologists misclassified these armored dinosaurs (Euoplocephalus pictured) as members of the related but distinct group Stegosauria for decades until they were separated by Alfred Sherwood Romer? Abyssal (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Ritchie333, does ALT2 satisfy your concerns? BlueMoonset (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- To be perfectly honest, I think we're better off deferring to a third opinion on this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Third opinion needed on the suitability of ALT2, and also a review of its sourcing and neutrality. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Third party comment: I'm sorry, but these three hooks are all pretty boring: most people won't care that clade A used to be in clade B, and even most dinosaur fans would just go "oh, ok". (The DYK hooks in general seem to be rather hum drum lately). And Alt2 makes me picture ankylosaurs chipping away with rock hammers. I think a much more interesting hook would involve the pre-scientific hypotheses of the bones (grandfather of the Buffalo, Yeitso, etc), however from the way the article is written, it seems like these theories could be said about any old bones beside ankylosaurs. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Alt 3: ... that highlights from the history of ankylosaur research include one of the first dinosaurs ever discovered and a dinosaur with armored eyelids (pictured)?
Here's Alt 3. I still have some work to do adding information on the fotprints to the timeline article, and going to briefly mention the fossil finds referenced in the hook in some of the linked articles. Abyssal (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Progress is still ongoing. I've discovered a need for another source, but I'm hoping to finish today. Abyssal (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
approved AGFI see that @Abyssal: has done extra work. Can it can be confirmed that the article is now consdered ready for review. Alt3 looks fine to me, especially if its trimmed after "pictured". Victuallers (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Fuebaey: Why? Surely the review just needs completing once Abyssal has confirmed the request above? Victuallers (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
ALT3 only - I have removed ", and trace fossils like footprints and gut contents" from the end of alt3. THis leaves a fully checked hook and the details of the rest oif the review is detailed above. Victuallers (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Added "and" in place of comma. Abyssal (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I like the new ALT3 as above. shorter is better. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
