- 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 06:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Undulatoolithus
edit- ... that Undulatoolithus was the first elongatoolithid fossil egg discovered in the Pingxiang Basin?
- ALT1:... that the shell of the fossil egg Undulatoolithus is covered with nodes and ridges that make up almost half of the eggshell's thickness?
- Reviewed: Sacred Heart Church, Exeter
Created by Ashorocetus (talk). Self-nominated at 05:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC).
The first hook isn't great; the second is a bit more exciting, though the paper gives more detail, some of which could be incorporated. Both are properly verified. The article is long enough and new enough. I see no plagiarism, etc. I made some copy edits; more may be needed. Now, one of the problems I have is that there's only one source. That one article is fine and reliable, of course, but it's a bit thin for our article. However, there's this, and I want to ask Ashorocetus to incorporate that article into Undulatoolithus. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- OK, yeah thought that the single source might be a concern. I added some generic elongatoolithid info from Simon 2014, and a paleobiology section. I'll look at Huh et al 2014 as soon as I get access, but I kind of doubt it'll have any new info. Also here's a couple new hooks if the other two are too dull: Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 05:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- I got this article. The only thing it says about Undulatoolithus is that it's an Elongatoolithid.Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 22:23, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
ALT2: ... that Undulatoolithus, a kind of fossil egg from China, probably received intensive parental care?
ALT3: ... that Undulatoolithus is kind of fossil egg that resembles Macroolithus except for its thicker ornamentation?
- OK, the URL in the article was incorrect; I changed it. Also, the text was not a doctoral dissertation but rather a master's thesis. I suppose ALT2 is verified on p. 3 (please add the page number to the citation), and it's a nice hook, but I'm a bit hesitant because it's sourced to a master's thesis. That is, I have no reason to doubt it, but still--BlueMoonset, who is your go-to editor for sciency questions? Drmies (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Drmies, as I noted on your talk page a little while ago, I don't have one. Have you had any luck finding a sciency type? BlueMoonset (talk) 07:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, missed that I guess. FunkMonk, I believe your expertise is called for here. Can you have a look? Drmies (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm, that would make it a nomen nudum, and therefore not a "validly" published name. We do have other articles about such taxa (for example Saltriosaurus), though, but they are generally discouraged. As such, it should be placed in this[1] category. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- The thesis is not the description of Undulatoolithus, its simply a reference I used for some characteristics of Elongatoolithids in general (which would also apply to Undulatoolithus). The oogenus was described in a peer reviewed journal, Zootaxa, and is fully valid as far as I can tell. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 02:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- If the DYK fact is basede on the published paper, I think it should be alright. FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- ALT0, ALT1, and ALT3 are all based on the published paper. ALT2 is from the thesis, but I could scrounge around a little to find a published paper for it if necessary. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 22:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- If the DYK fact is basede on the published paper, I think it should be alright. FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- The thesis is not the description of Undulatoolithus, its simply a reference I used for some characteristics of Elongatoolithids in general (which would also apply to Undulatoolithus). The oogenus was described in a peer reviewed journal, Zootaxa, and is fully valid as far as I can tell. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 02:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm, that would make it a nomen nudum, and therefore not a "validly" published name. We do have other articles about such taxa (for example Saltriosaurus), though, but they are generally discouraged. As such, it should be placed in this[1] category. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
