Template:Did you know nominations/Shivalik Fossil Park


 * 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 Victuallers (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Shivalik Fossil Park

 * ... that the fossils in the Shivalik Fossil Park are inferred to be of mammals (pictured) which resided in the area about 1 to 2.5 million years ago in the geological formations of the Shivalik Hills?


 * ALT1: ... that the fibreglass models (pictured) on display in an open area of the Shivalik Fossil Park are of six extinct animals?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Valanga nigricornis

5x expanded by Nvvcha Thankr (talk). Self-nominated at 08:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Article expanded over 5x and recent enough. I have concerns that the hook and cited sentence imply more doubt about the age and taxonomy then the citations themselves have.  IS there doubt about the age or the taxonomy of the fossils?  Also the models and paleobiota sections indicate more then just mammals are present.-- Kev  min  § 15:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * . Thanks for the review. The museum has models of mammals in the open field and also vertebrate fossils in the museum building. I have removed the reference and the text mentioning 1 to 2.5 million years ago and corrected it to about 2.5 million years as given in the Geological Survey of India reference. I have now modified the text in the article and suggesting an ALT2 hook to the original as:

ALT2 Hook ... that the exhibits in the Shivalik Fossil Park consist of vertebrate fossils (pictured a model) that resided in the area about 2.5 million years ago in the Shivalik Hills?

Please cut out the original hook. Thanks.-- Nvvchar . 02:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That clears up one of the issues, I still have reservations about the level of uncertainty about the taxa identification that article presents-- Kev min  § 03:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * . Sorry about missing the second point. I have now reatined the names as in the references and deleted the taxonomic names as obtained from wiki links.-- Nvvchar . 07:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that not actually what I was referring to. I am leery of the use of the term "inferred", as it implies there is notable uncertainty in the identification of the fossils to the age and taxon that they are described as.  This uncertainty does not seem to be reflected in the few scientific sources you have referenced.-- Kev  min  § 11:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing to the negativity in the use of "inferred". Dumb not to realise it. I hope I have made it positive enough now.-- Nvvchar . 12:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Article long enough after expansion, expansion new enough. References are good and alt2 hook fact is verified.  No copyright issues detected, but one reference link himachaltourism.gov.in/nature_parks.php is no longer functioning. Its good to go, if the reference is fixed or replaced.-- Kev  min  § 20:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Unfortunately the said url seems to have been withdrawn. Exactly the same information and in the same format is contained in this reference with the same title "National parks" and work title "Suketi Fossil Work". If it is acceptable, I will replace the earlier reference with new reference. Of course the same text is contained in other references also. Pl advice.-- Nvvchar . 06:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would transition out the dead link, replacing it with the other two where needed. once thats done the article is going to be good to go.-- Kev min  § 14:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dead link transitioned with the reference mentioned above.-- Nvvchar . 07:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Looks like its good to go now. sorry for the delayed response.-- Kev min  § 13:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg The ALT2 hook infers that fossils resided in the park. Do you mean "fossils of vertebrates"? Yoninah (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Slightly changed the ALT 2 Hook to read:
 * ALT3: ... that the exhibits in the Shivalik Fossil Park consist of fossils of vertebrates (models pictured) that resided in the area of the Shivalik Hills about 2.5 million years ago?-- Nvvchar . 18:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Thank you. I tweaked the hook slightly. 5x expansion verified. New enough, long enough, neutrally written, no close paraphrasing seen. As I am unable to access the Geological Survey of India site, AGF on the hook ref, which is cited inline. QPQ done. Image is freely licensed. ALT3 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)