Template:Did you know nominations/Java Man

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 Yoninah (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Java Man

(

)

~~... that to prove that Java Man was the "missing link" between apes and humans, its discoverer Eugène Dubois claimed that it looked like a "giant gibbon"?~~

Comment: This is my fourth DYK submission.

5x expanded by Madalibi (talk). Self nominated at 10:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC).

ALT1 ... that to add weight to his claim that Java Man was the "missing link" between apes and humans, its discoverer Eugène Dubois stated that it looked like a "giant gibbon"?

Alt suggested as claiming it looked like a giant gibbon doesn't prove anything except that Dubois thinks it looks like a giant gibbon (imagine the arms on that, it could tickle you from the next room) Belle (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see you again, Belle, and thanks for the ALT! Yes, I see what you mean. I tried to formulate the hook as simply as possible, but if it turns out to be inaccurate, then it's no good. How about this one, which replaces "add weight to" with "support", and "stated" with "argued"?

ALT2: ... that to support his claim that Java Man was the "missing link" between apes and humans, its discoverer Eugène Dubois argued that it looked like a "giant gibbon"?

OR (because the hook is a bit long and because it's clear from context that the "missing link" is between apes and humans):

ALT3: ... that to support his claim that Java Man was the "missing link", its discoverer Eugène Dubois argued that it looked like a "giant gibbon"?

My favorite is ALT3. Ok, let me know what you think! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 10:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

ALT3 is my favourite too. This article is long enough, expanded enough, neutral enough, non-plagiarised enough (accepted in good faith for the most part), generally all-round sexy enough. There is a citation needed tag that should probably be cleared up before it is passed (I think I recall seeing that in one of the supplementary rules, guidelines, or vague whisperings) and also (though not in a DYK impacting sense) the reclassification to home erectus in the 1950s is mentioned in the lead but not really covered in the main article. Belle (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Belle: Excellent points both of them! Let me fix them... Madalibi (talk) 11:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Belle: ringing you again, just to let you know that I fixed the {{citation needed}} and that I'm taking care of your second point right now. Thanks again! Madalibi (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ready (to form a missing link between nominations and main page as Article Prepandqueuensis; ignore this bit prep-maker, I'm just being silly). Belle (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)