- 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 Yoninah (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 07:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough
|
|
|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
|
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
|
|
|
Overall: 
See below.
- The cited source technically says subclass. If a subclass is a class, it's good to go. Cake (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, any comment or response? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- @MisterCake: That is very observant of you. Biological classification is always subject to change. The new shrimps were first described in 1955 and as you say, were claimed to be in a new subclass. The World Register of Marine Species now classifies them as a class, and WoRMS is what Wikipedia accepts for classification. I could use the word taxon in the hook, but that would mask the fact that this was a big new discovery, a high level group of previously unknown organisms. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, since it seems likely this will come up when it comes time to promote this, I think you should add a source to the article that can confirm its change to being a class rather than a subclass, or even just confirm that it is currently a class. Per DYK rules, the main facts, including class, need to be supported, since a subclass is not a class. BlueMoonset (talk) 11:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I have added an extra reference to the article. When an organism new to science is discovered, it may not be immediately apparent where it fits in the classification system, and this subclass/class thing is no big deal. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, for people who don't understand this necessarily, having a sentence at the end of the lede that says "class", and the source clearly saying "subclass" in its title, it is a big deal in terms of understanding. Absent a source citation at the end of that final lede sentence that confirms "class", this is not ready for the main page. The infobox doesn't count for DYK purposes; it's the article text that matters. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- If you look at the source I have added, you will see that it states that Cephalocarida is a class and uses the 1955 research article, which mentions subclass, as a reference. I have rearranged the references in the lead, does that help? Biology is full of arguments about taxonomy, with different authorities coming to different conclusions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth, the new source citation (and arrangement of citations) satisfy me that this is a class. Since MisterCake did the actual review of the article, I would prefer that they complete their review and give the approval tick, assuming it's still warranted, since I don't have time to do further checking on my own. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Looks good to go then.
Cake (
talk) 23:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
See below.