Template:Did you know nominations/Mojokerto child

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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Mojokerto child edit

(

)

... that the Mojokerto child was so unexpectedly old that it was discussed in a Time Magazine cover story?

Comment: This is my third DYK nomination.

Created by Madalibi (talk). Self nominated at 04:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC).

New enough; long enough. Neutral. No plagiarism or copyvio in the sources I could access (in reference 12, page 109 of Carbonell et al. 2008 is cited. There is no page 109 in that article and it isn't page 209 either). Hook is very hooky (it grabbed me and I'm not easily grabbed as I'm wriggly and covered in bear grease) but the sample probably wasn't really as old as first thought (and you went all macho with "he was"). I'd let it through, but perhaps a second opinion would help. Belle (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Writhing ursine: Sorry about the bungled reference: it is p. 199 and I have corrected it. "He was" may not be entirely accurate, but this is how it was presented at the time, and it's not like the child was found to be really young in the end. We could say "was thought to be so unexpectedly old", but that would sound clumsy and much less hooky. (Might not have gone through the bear grease.) And can you imagine that old hook ".. that Batman is half female" reworded into the more accurate "... that Batman is 48% female"? Anyway, a second opinion would help! Cheers! Madalibi (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a bear (honestly, a girl can't slather herself in bear grease nowadays without being called ursine? It's mammalian correctness gone mad!) Pinging Storye book and EEng as trusted reviewers (Storye book anyway, EEng will just give us somebody to pick on) who might have an opinion on whether we can squeeze through this hook on the basis of its hookiness. Belle (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Bellemora: Being ursine does not make you a bear. I would have called you Ursa Minor, but for all I know you might be Major, and I wouldn't want to associate you with kitchen implements. Maybe plantigrade? What do I know about your feet? Back to our sheep (as the French say): I think "was" in the hook suggests that this dating is from the past, so I'd say it's legit! But I found another way in which we could play on the "macho" side of this: paleontologists have no idea if the "Mojokerto child" was a boy or a girl. So how about this:

ALT1: "... ~~that the Mojokerto child was so unexpectedly old that he (or she?) was discussed in a Time Magazine cover story"?~~

Old child and gender uncertainty all in one? We're getting close to Bieber territory over here! Madalibi (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Belle, Storye book, EEng: so are we good to go with the original hook? Madalibi (talk) 02:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you Madalibi, let's put this nom/child/bear out of its agony. Initial review by Belle taken on trust. I have struck ALT1 due to above comment and because it is more wordy than the original. Good to go with original hook which is referenced to offline citation #11, taken AGF. --Storye book (talk) 08:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Great, thank you Storye book! Madalibi (talk) 09:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)