Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Eoprephasma"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Spirit of Eagle |
imported>Allen3 (to prep6) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | <noinclude>[[Category:Passed DYK nominations from March 2015]]<div style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |
| − | + | :''The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify this page.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as [[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|this nomination's talk page]], [[Talk:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|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 ''[[User: Allen3|Allen3]]'' <sup>[[User talk:Allen3|talk]]</sup> 21:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)<br /> |
{{DYK conditions}} | {{DYK conditions}} | ||
====Eoprephasma==== | ====Eoprephasma==== | ||
{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Eoprephasma|Eoprephasma}} | {{DYK nompage links|nompage=Eoprephasma|Eoprephasma}} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
* ... that the fossil stick insect '''''[[Eoprephasma]]''''' was described from two isolated forewings? | * ... that the fossil stick insect '''''[[Eoprephasma]]''''' was described from two isolated forewings? | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
:* '''ALT1''':... that the extinct stick insect '''''[[Eoprephasma]]''''' is known from Washington and British Columbian fossils? | :* '''ALT1''':... that the extinct stick insect '''''[[Eoprephasma]]''''' is known from Washington and British Columbian fossils? | ||
:* ''Reviewed'': [[Template:Did you know nominations/Brachycaudus helichrysi|Brachycaudus helichrysi]] | :* ''Reviewed'': [[Template:Did you know nominations/Brachycaudus helichrysi|Brachycaudus helichrysi]] | ||
:* ''Comment'': Reviewed ''[[Brachycaudus helichrysi]]'' of the nomination | :* ''Comment'': Reviewed ''[[Brachycaudus helichrysi]]'' of the nomination | ||
<small>Created by [[User:Kevmin|Kevmin]] ([[User talk:Kevmin|talk]]). Self nominated at 04:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)</small>. | <small>Created by [[User:Kevmin|Kevmin]] ([[User talk:Kevmin|talk]]). Self nominated at 04:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC)</small>. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | :* [[File:Symbol voting keep.svg|16px]] Ok, let’s see: the article was created less than a week ago, has sufficient characters and it’s within policy (I’m assuming in good faith that the article is free of close paraphrasing). The hook is less than 200 characters, interesting, neutral, and is cited in-line. All in all, this hook is good to go. Also, I’d go with the first hook since it’s more interesting. [[User:Spirit of Eagle|Spirit of Eagle]] ([[User talk:Spirit of Eagle|talk]]) 04:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)</div></noinclude><!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | |
Latest revision as of 21:33, 22 March 2015
- 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 Allen3 talk 21:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Eoprephasma
- ... that the fossil stick insect Eoprephasma was described from two isolated forewings?
- ALT1:... that the extinct stick insect Eoprephasma is known from Washington and British Columbian fossils?
- Reviewed: Brachycaudus helichrysi
- Comment: Reviewed Brachycaudus helichrysi of the nomination
Created by Kevmin (talk). Self nominated at 04:15, 17 March 2015 (UTC).
Ok, let’s see: the article was created less than a week ago, has sufficient characters and it’s within policy (I’m assuming in good faith that the article is free of close paraphrasing). The hook is less than 200 characters, interesting, neutral, and is cited in-line. All in all, this hook is good to go. Also, I’d go with the first hook since it’s more interesting. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)