Template:Did you know nominations/Alopias palatasi
- 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) 09:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Alopias palatasi
.png)
Fossil tooth of Alopias palatasi
- ... that unlike its congeneric relatives, the extinct giant thresher shark Alopias palatasi is hypothesized to have lacked elongated tails and instead looked more similar to the great white shark? Source: [1] "It is unlikely that the new giant thresher shark possessed an elongated dorsal tail lobe seen in the Recent species. As the dentition is converging on a great white shark and its size was similar or larger, it is reasonable to suppose that the body outline was similar."
- ALT1:... that the extinct giant thresher shark Alopias palatasi is the only one of its kind to possess serrated teeth? Source: [2] "Despite extensive research on fossil elasmobranchs in this area, one species of large thresher shark (family Alopiidae) with distinctively serrated teeth has not been previously named."
- ALT2:... that despite the large attention given to it by the amateur collectors and dealers, discoveries of fossils from a new species of extinct giant thresher shark now known as Alopias palatasi were ignored by scientific literature for over a decade until one was donated to a paleontologist? Source [3] "Curiously, these teeth were well known by amateur collectors and fossil dealers but had no mention in the scientific literature"
Improved to Good Article status by Macrophyseter (talk). Self-nominated at 04:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC).
Article has been reviewed as a good article, so no problem there. Article was nominated within a week of being promoted to GA status. This seems to be the nominator's first DYK nomination so no past review on nominator's part per WP:QPQ. Hooks are backed up by citations, long and interesting enough. Personally I favor the second hook as it seems to be the most concise, but I have no real problem with any of the three. Perhaps another editor could weigh in on that. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
