Template:Did you know nominations/Parvoblongoolithus

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 Jolly Ω Janner 06:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Parvoblongoolithus

(

)

... ~~that the dinosaur egg Parvoblongoolithus may be a fossil dwarf egg?~~

ALT1:... ~~that Parvoblongoolithus is a kind of fossil egg with an unusually thick shell?~~
ALT2:... ~~that Parvoblongoolithus is a kind of fossil egg whose ovoid shape and thick shell may be deformities?~~
ALT3:... ~~that Parvoblongoolithus is a dinosaur egg with a similar shape to bird eggs, but with a different microstructure?~~
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Focaccia al rosmarino

5x expanded by Ashorocetus (talk). Self-nominated at 06:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC).

This looks like a possible April Fools nomination to me, with the hook:
ALT4: ... ~~that Parvoblongoolithus might be a fossilized dwarf?~~ Gatoclass (talk) 09:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm.. I do believe that would work. My only thought is "might be" isn't all that firm. Is there a way to say it that sounds less speculative? Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 14:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

ALT5: ... that Parvoblongoolithus appears to be a fossilized dwarf? Gatoclass (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I like that better. Do you think it would add to the effect if we also mentioned the thick eggshell, maybe like this: Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 04:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

ALT6: ... ~~that Parvoblongoolithus appears to be a fossilized dwarf because of its thick shell?~~

I don't think that will work, because the misleading aspect of ALT5 is that people associate the word "dwarf" with a short humanoid, and they don't come from shells. Gatoclass (talk) 05:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 05:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Full review needed; ALT5 is the only remaining hook, and this remains a possible April Fools nom. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

This article cites only one source. This review of the paper may be helpful for a quote from the researchers. There appear to be other sources in Chinese on Google search. Yoninah (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. So far as I can tell (my Chinese is not great even with Google translate) none of those articles say anything new, but I added a citation to that phys.org article.Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 01:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. But the new source doesn't verify the sentence fact, about the two-layer versus three-layer shell. It only mentions that Parvoblongoolithus differs from the other eggs in size and assymetrical shape. Yoninah (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited the article based on the new source. I removed the cite regarding the 3-layer versus 2-layer eggshell. Here is a complete review: 5x expansion verified. New enough, long enough, adequately referenced, no close paraphrasing see in online source. Offline hook ref AGF and cited inline. QPQ done. ALT5 good to go for April Fools Day. Yoninah (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)