Template:Did you know nominations/T. Rex and the Crater of Doom
- 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) 18:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
T. Rex and the Crater of Doom
[edit]... that T. Rex and the Crater of Doom details the discovery of a meteor impact that killed the dinosaurs?
- Reviewed: Zhang Ruoxu
- Comment: Moved to mainspace today. It was in my userspace before that.
Created by Silver seren (talk). Self nominated at 22:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC).
Name, date, length, hook, and checks for plagiarism all check out. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
- I pulled this from prep because the hook implies that the asteroid theory of dinosaur extinction is
generally accepted sciencethe universally accepted explanation of long standing, which it's not. Hook needs to acknowedge this, but I didn't feel comfortably making such a change on the fly in prep. Perhaps
ALT1... that T. Rex and the Crater of Doom details the development of the hypothesis that the dinosaurs were wiped out by the Chicxulub impactor?
- EEng (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- I am amused that this book details the people who refused to believe the evidence regardless of how firm it is and now this has been pulled back by someone who disagrees with the scientific consensus on the topic (which is real regardless of what you think in regards to it). But, that's fine, I like the wording of your hook better anyways, though one change:
- ALT2... that T. Rex and the Crater of Doom details the development of the hypothesis that the dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor impact?
- I should have put my concerns more precisely (now modified above), but nonetheless I believe the original hook implies a level of "fact"-hood yet to be achieved. EEng (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- That works for me, so my apologies for not catching when I went through the hook the first time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
So, can we get someone else in here to approve the ALT2 hook? The article has already been reviewed and approved, it's just the new hook that needs to be approved. SilverserenC 22:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)