- 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) 11:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Warnowiaceae, Ocelloid
edit( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
A protist with an "eye"
- ... that Warnowiaceae have an "eye"? But, but, I thought eukaryotes are only one celled. ...
- ALT1: ... that single-celled organisms called Warnowiaceae have an "eye" so complex it was once assumed to belong to a multicellular organism?
- ALT2: ... that single-celled organisms called Warnowiaceae have an "eye" that is one of the most complex known sub-cellular structures?
- Reviewed: QPQ for ocelloid: Template:Did you know nominations/William Etty. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Thanks Ancheta Wis for the inspiration! Can I add ocelloid to this nomination? (Created by The Anome, expanded by me.) Will add QPQ later. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: I thought it was prokaryotes that are unicellular, while eukaryotes are multicelluar.Red Fiona (talk) 01:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Prokaryotes are unicellular, eukaryotes can be either. These particular ones are unicellular organisms with internal structures made out of big clusters of endosymbiotic organelles that in turn derive from other unicellular organisms (mitochondria = bacteria, plastid = red alga). Those structures are so complex that they've been mistaken for, or hypothesized to be related to, actual organs in multicellular organisms. I think Ancheta was going for a joke about eyes being necessarily multicellular. A little hard to parse for the main page though :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Created by Opabinia regalis (talk). Nominated by Ancheta Wis (talk) at 07:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC).
These two articles are new enough and long enough. Any of the hooks is acceptable, being appropriately cited, mostly in the Ocelloid article. The image is suitably licensed, the articles are neutral and I detected no copyright issues. I have added Opabinia regalis to the credits for Ocelloid, but I am not sure I have done it right. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
