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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
... that the Eocene age plant Paraconcavistylon was described from a "rosetta stone" fossil? Source: "but we might not have recognized them as conspecific without the Republic Rosetta Stone specimen." (Manchester et al 2018 page 665, 667)
Overall: Kevmin, I assess that this article meets or exceeds all DYK criteria. I confirmed that the article was moved to the main page on 15 September, that it is of an appropriate length at 7076 characters (897 words) "readable prose size", and that the hook and article content is verifiable and sourced from reliable references. The hook is also hooky, and is of an appropriate length at 92 characters. West Virginian (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Kevmin, I assess that this article meets or exceeds all DYK criteria. I confirmed that the article was moved to the main page on 15 September, that it is of an appropriate length at 7076 characters (897 words) "readable prose size", and that the hook and article content is verifiable and sourced from reliable references. The hook is also hooky, and is of an appropriate length at 92 characters. West Virginian (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)