Template:Did you know nominations/Triassosculda

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Talk|{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Template|Category:Passed DYK nominations from November 2023|}}

: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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 14:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

... that until April 2023, when the genus Triassosculda was discovered, there was an over 100 million year gap in the Mantis shrimp fossil record? Source: {{Cite journal |last1=Smith |first1=C.P.A. |last2=Aubier |first2=P. |last3=Charbonnier |first3=S. |last4=Laville |first4=T. |last5=Olivier |first5=N. |last6=Escarguel |first6=G. |last7=Jenks |first7=J.F. |last8=Bylund |first8=K.G. |last9=Fara |first9=E. |last10=Brayard |first10=A. |date=2023-03-31 |title=Closing a major gap in mantis shrimp evolution - first fossils of Stomatopoda from the Triassic |url=http://www.geology.cz/bulletin/contents/art1864 |journal=Bulletin of Geosciences |language=en |pages=95–110 |doi=10.3140/bull.geosci.1864 |issn=1802-8225|doi-access=free }}
Reviewed:

Created by {{user0|Abdullah raji}}. Self-nominated at 06:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC). Expanded by {{user0|Olmagon}}. Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Triassosculda; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

16px The article is not only still a stub, but it does not reach the 1,500 character count. Apparently, it's been a long time since your first failed DYK, so I would suggest getting familiar with the WP:Did you know/Guidelines for understanding article qualifications for DYK nomination because this article does not qualify. I understand that this taxon was just recently described this year and is only mentioned by one source as a result, but you need to make the article informative nonetheless. PrimalMustelid (talk) 10:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
16px The article was just 235 prose characters when I left an edit summary ping with a note that it needed to be expanded to 1500. It's now 1001. {{U|Abdullah raji}}, {{U|Olmagon}}, and {{U|Asparagusus}}, do you think you can expand it further within a few days? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
{{U|Mandarax}}: possibly, but this might be the only source as it was just recently discovered. I'll see what I can do. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 17:37, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
16px It's now 2115 prose characters, with 7 refs. (Thanks, {{U|Olmagon}}; you've been added to the credits.) {{U|PrimalMustelid}}, this is ready for a full review. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Alright, I'm impressed by how quickly this nomination was saved by a group of editors. With that, I will rescind my rejection vote and make a quick review of the DYK nomination:

{{DYK checklist

|newness =y

|length =y

|eligibilityother =

|sourced =y

|neutral =y

|plagiarismfree =y

|policyother =

|hookcited =y

|hookinterest =y

|hookother =

|picfree =NA

|picused =

|picclear =

|qpq =NA

|status =y

|comments = The fact for the DYK nomination is cited within the article, and a fossil to partially cover said gap within Stomatopoda in the paleontological record is interesting. No copyright violations according to Earwig's Copyvio. Looks good to go!

|sign = PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

}}

|}}