Template:Did you know nominations/Last universal common ancestor
- 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 BorgQueen (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Last universal common ancestor
- ... that the last universal common ancestor possibly lived around 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago? Source: Doolittle, W. F. (February 2000). "Uprooting the tree of life". Scientific American. 282 (2): 90–95. Bibcode:2000SciAm.282b..90D. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0200-90. JSTOR 26058605. PMID 1071079, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/uprooting-the-tree-of-life/
- ALT1: ... that the last universal common ancestor may have been a host to viruses? Source: Mart Krupovic, Valerian Dolja, Eugene Koonin. The LUCA and its complex virome. Nature Reviews Microbiology, Nature Publishing Group, 2020, 18 (11), pp.661-670. ff10.1038/s41579-020-0408-xff. ffpasteur-02909671f, https://hal-pasteur.archives-ouvertes.fr/pasteur-02909671/file/Krupovic_Koonin_edit_1591967607_1_R2_upload.pdf
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Windows 2.1x
- Comment: If you have any ideas for hooks then please share.
Improved to Good Article status by Chiswick Chap (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 22:15, 17 October 2022 (UTC).
Reviewing... LordPeter2go (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- ? Could be simpler
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
GA from good author, so as expected no problems. However, I feel like the hooks are fine, but could be simpler: Most people, including me, won't even know that a LUCA existed at all. How about an angle on that? I find it pretty surprising that all live is descended from one organism, and I mean not the first organism ever (that's extremely plausible), but a later one. LordPeter2go (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
- @LordPeterII and LordPeter2go: For the luca hook how about ALT2: "... that there might have been an organism in which all life descends from?" I don't really know how I could simplify the two hooks though. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
As LordPeterII Is on break. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Reviewing... Flibirigit (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Courtesy @Onegreatjoke:, I am reviewing this and will post by tomorrow at the latest. There is one citation needed tag in the virus section. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing: - ?
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited: - ?
- Interesting:
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: Article was promoted to GA on October 11 and nominated within seven days. Length is adequate. Sourcing is good except for one citation needed tag in the virus section. The article is neutral in tone. I found no plagiarism concerns, despite that Earwig highlighted a blog site which appeared to have copied Wikipedia. Both hooks are reasonably interesting, properly mentioned and cited in the article. I will AGF on ALT0 since I do not have access to the source. ALT1 is cited to a pdf, but I cannot find pages 661–670 to search for verification. Please clarify. All images used in the article are freely licensed on the Commons. QPQ requirement is complete. Overall, this nomination is in good shape, and needs only minor work. Flibirigit (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- The claim in ALT1 can be verified from the Abstract at the top of the archived file. Its page numbering (starting at 1, as an offprint) is not the same as the pagination of the journal publication, though the text is the same. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. I will revisit this later today, I also labelled ALT2 above and will consider it. Flibirigit (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
The sourcing concern has been fixed. ALT0 is approved by AGF as per above. ALT1 is verified by the PDF source. ALT2 is interesting, mentioned in the "Historical background" section, and verified by this source. Nomination is good to go. Flibirigit (talk) 16:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comment. I will revisit this later today, I also labelled ALT2 above and will consider it. Flibirigit (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- The claim in ALT1 can be verified from the Abstract at the top of the archived file. Its page numbering (starting at 1, as an offprint) is not the same as the pagination of the journal publication, though the text is the same. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
