- 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 97198 (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Tachiraptor
edit... that the 200-million year old Tachiraptor is the second dinosaur discovered from Venezuala, and a basal averostran?
- ALT1:
... that Tachiraptor is an Early Jurassic Venezualan basal averostran that has reduced the ghost lineage of its group? - Comment: This is a fairly important discovery, much in the same way Nyasasaurus was, so I think it's reasonable to put it up as a DYK entry.
- ALT1:
Created by MWAK (talk), G S Palmer (talk), FunkMonk (talk), and Jeda045 (talk). Nominated by Raptormimus456 (talk) at 13:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC).
- I agree that the discovery is important, but I must point out that Tachiraptor is not a basal averostran for the simple reason that it is not an averostran. It is part of the branch leading to the Averostra.--MWAK (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
- ALT1 just sounds like it should be in a textbook I'm too uneducated to understand. If it's correct ALT0 looks fine, but I'm going to ping: @FunkMonk, Jeda045, MWAK, G S Palmer, and Raptormimus456:. They'll know! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 14:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- It's a stem-averostran. But if you want a (or to) hook, you could say: ... that the newly discovered dinosaur Tachiraptor is by 25 million years the oldest known species of a branch leading to the birds? Not that Averostra itself is that branch, mind you. Birds always pique the interest of the reader.--MWAK (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- If it isn't an averostran, then neither hook is accurate, but the original one would be if the final averostran clause was lopped off. Striking the original hook and ALT1, and proposing a version of the original hook as follows:
- ALT2: ...
that the 200-million-year-old Tachiraptor is the second dinosaur discovered from Venezuala? - ALT3: ... that the 200-million-year-old Tachiraptor is a new type of dinosaur discovered in Venezuela?
- ALT2: ...
Full review needed of this nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
New enough, long enough, neutral, no close paraphrasing to the source – although more than one source would be better. I have struck ALT2 and added ALT3 though. Various other dinosaur remains have been found, and the source does not say this is the second type found. Also the dinosaur was from Gondwana, not really from Venezuela. Maybe someone else can check the ALT3 hook. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Continuing from Aymatth2's review above. Added other sources, all of them can be considered just padding, since they're also based on the sole paper. Unavoidable though, since it's newly described. Did minor tweaks to article. As for Venezuela being in Gondwana (though then merged with Laurasia into Pangaea in the Hettangian), we go with current geography heh. So it is still correct to say it is from Venezuela. Formations, after all, don't switch continents, they get carried along. ALT3 is good to go.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 10:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
