Template:Did you know nominations/Ocepeia

The following discussion 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) 10:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ocepeia

(

)

... that Ocepeia (pictured), a 60 million year old afrotherian mammal, is named after a Moroccan mining company?

ALT1:... that Ocepeia (pictured), is currently the oldest afrotherian mammal known from a skull, and lived about 60 million years ago?
Comment: A few other possible images could be used instead, if a reviewer would think they would be more suitable, see Category:Ocepeia for the selection. IJReid (talk) 04:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Created by Reid,iain james (talk), Animalparty (talk). Nominated by Reid,iain james (talk) at 04:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC).

The text of the description section is much to close to the reference section for me to be comfortable with it. Bluemoonset should possibly take a look at it to see how the opensource rules mesh with the copyvio rules. I have pinged him/her.--Kev min § 00:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

What part of the section is paraphrased? If it was the beginning or cranium section, it was probably added by Animalparty. If in the dentition, it might be easy to fix it, while making it easier to understand. IJReid (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Heres what the Duplucation detector picked up--Kev min § 01:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the duplications is that almost all of the larger (>10 words) paraphrasing is from the Distinguishing anatomical features section, which is very hard to change from what it is in the source. Anyway, from what I am accustomed with, Ocepeia is already expanded enough to be a new DYK without the anatomical features section. However, I will try to change the anatomical features section as much as I can. IJReid (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

IJReid, since the source is CC-licensed, an alternative option would be to include an attribution template from this list to clarify that some of the content here is quite close to that source; you're correct that there is enough original content cited to other sources to pass DYK, once this issue is cleared up (and assuming Kevmin is satisfied that none of the non-free sources are too closely paraphrased?) Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the section was recently altered by me to fix the paraphrasing issue. It might not be enough, but now it will be much easier to change accordingly. Could Kevmin please check over it now? IJReid (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

@Kevmin: The duplicated section has been greatly altered now. If you would like me to add an attribution template, I can, but if not or you don't care, I will not. The phrasing in the section is now very different from originally, and is much easier for non-anatomical nerds to understand. IJReid (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that not only has the anatomical section been substantially revised, (while still remaining fairly accurate) but the overall article has increased in length and scope. Also, I don't know if mammal needs to be wikilinked in the hook, as it is a commonly known, while Afrotheria is not, and it might be confusing to have two navigable links next to each other. --Animalparty-- (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

With the rewrite and expansion I don't see any problems now. The article is new enough and long enough by far. The image is fair use, and the hooks are both referenced. I don't see nay other policy issues. And the off line references are taken agf. Apologies for the delay in reviewing. --Kev min § 01:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)