Template:Did you know nominations/Manot Cave


 * 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 Allen3 talk 11:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Manot Cave

 * ... that a skull discovered in the Manot Cave in Israel provides evidence that modern humans lived side-by-side with Neanderthals?
 * ALT1: ... that Manot 1, the skull discovered in the Manot Cave in Israel, provides evidence that modern humans lived side-by-side with Neanderthals?
 * ALT2:... that Manot 1, a skull discovered in the Manot Cave in Israel, provides evidence that modern humans lived side-by-side with Neanderthals?
 * Reviewed for Manot 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Ladislaus I of Hungary --Pgallert (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Created by Dweller (talk), Chhandama (talk). Manot Cave nominated by Dweller (talk), and Manot 1 nominated by Pgallert (talk), see discussion below. .


 * Comment: I'd love someone to say something about this! --Dweller (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Article long enough, created on the indicated day, and properly referenced. The hook is neutral, informative, and properly referenced. No QPQ required. However, the duplication detector reports a number of matches with the article's main source. I wouldn't go as far as calling it 'close paraphrasing' but I'd like to encourage the authors to attempt one more round of rewording. Please also check the duplication detector against the Nature paywall reference, I cannot access that one. --Pgallert (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Manot 1 was created by on Feb 4 and is, albeit a few days late, long and good enough for DYK. Could an exception be made to include it in this nomination? --Pgallert (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg Pgallert, it would be four (or now five) days late. I suppose it's possible, though a bit of a stretch since Chhandama is, as you say on WT:DYK, not a DYK newbie. A QPQ would certainly need to be supplied for Manot 1. Also, you are incorrect that no QPQ is required for the original nomination: The Rambling Man has well over five DYK nominations to his credit, and all DYK nominations are subject to QPQs after the fifth (as of this past November), not merely self-nominations. I would definitely characterize the first three sentences in the Description section as very close paraphrasing of the source (hence the new icon), which must be fixed for this nomination to be eligible for approval. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the heads-up with the QPQ, I didn't know that. There is no feedback on WT:DYK yet on the possible exception, will contact in the mean time on the remaining issues. --Pgallert (talk) 10:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing a QPQ, this is a nomination on behalf of Dweller, and he's done plenty. I don't want credit for this, if someone wants to change the nominator name, please feel free to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's true. TRM did the nom for me because I'm too lazy/stupid to get my head round all the rules and processes, which I confess to finding Byzantine. --Dweller (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * <-I've fixed a bunch of paraphrasing issues, including all of the four worst offenders (one has been converted into a quote, as anything else would have been trite and stupid). I don't quite get the QPQ, but I reviewed a bunch of DYKs in the last fortnight. --Dweller (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that you left a few comments in other nominations that are still on this page. Please be so kind to spell out for which of those submissions you agree to do a full review, if any. As admin, bureaucrat and oversighter you surely are able to dig through a large set of rules ;) --Pgallert (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Lol @ . It took me years to build up my knowledge of policy and guideline before taking those offices. I have to do a full review of one nomination? Seems daft to encourage a newby to do the full works on one, rather than make useful contributions to several,, but I don't mind. Point me at one, and I'll try not to break anything. --Dweller (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you do. Another of the Byzantine rules is that if you haven't had at least five DYKs, you don't need a QPQ.  So just change the nominator name to Dweller and this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed The Rambling Man as nominator as this was a procedural nomination for Dweller, who only has two DYKs to their name; so no QPQ is required. Harrias talk 16:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. So... what happens now? --Dweller (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Basically, we all procrastinate for a while, then someone gets around to reviewing it, and hopefully approving it. Then we get forget about it for ages, and then someone puts it into a prep area. Eventually an admin reviews that prep areas, and moves it to a queue, and then it appears on the main page. Simple, really. Harrias talk 18:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * And then, just prior to posting, some know-it-all editor rephrases it or translates it into USEng and it gets pulled two minutes after it's posted. Hey, that's DYK, the slums of the main page!!!  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds great! How do I get to be a regular? Is there a club tattoo? --Dweller (talk) 22:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL, that looks like an accurate description to me. Still DYK is somewhat of a spa compared to other places. --Pgallert (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, let's do it like this: Manot Cave is now nominated by Dweller per above discussion. For this article no review is required per assertion of User:Harrias, as Dweller would be then at 3 DYK credits (How did you find that out?) . I take it on me to add Manot 1 to the nomination, and will do a review, to be added shortly. After 2 full days without negative input on WT:DYK I think I can make use of WP:IAR (for a 4-day late nomination at the time it was first suggested) for the first time in my editing history. The suggested new hook would be: --Pgallert (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT1: ... that Manot 1, the skull discovered in the Manot Cave in Israel, provides evidence that modern humans lived side-by-side with Neanderthals?
 * I have added a review for Manot 1. --Pgallert (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg According to our Byzantine rules this would of course mean that a new reviewer would have to approve it. Somewhat logical, actually. --Pgallert (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's just get on with it shall we? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Lol @ TRM. There may well have been several skulls in the cave, not least those of animals. Hence a minor tweak the->a: ALT2:... that Manot 1, a skull discovered in the Manot Cave in Israel, provides evidence that modern humans lived side-by-side with Neanderthals? --Dweller (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Both article are plenty long enough, and by DYK standards, the hook is off the charts for interestingness. The date of nomination for the cave is fine, and for the skull I don't mind IAR given the hookiness. However, Manot 1 has a fair bit of close-paraphrasing:, . I appreciate some of this is unavoidable, but for me the similarities are too close at the moment; the Discovery section particularly needs a thorough copy-edit. The Manot Cave article on the other hand, after the work by Dweller, is fine. So at the moment, the hook and cave article check out, no problem, but a bit of work is needed on Manot 1. Harrias talk 14:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have a horror of close paraphrasing so I'll have a bash at it. --Dweller (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Worst offences should now be fixed. --Dweller (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Boy, that was quick, thanks. Those edits have certainly cleared it up, and actually made it more readable too! In that case, I think we're good to go with ALT2 (I'll strike the others for clarity). Harrias talk 15:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)