Talk:Notharctus

Did you know nomination

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. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Notharctus skeleton in the AMNH

• ... that Notharctus, one of the first discovered fossil primates in North America, was originally classified as a pachyderm?

• Source: Gregory, William K (1920-9) On the Structure and Relations of Notharctus, an American Eocene Primate, Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History,Volume 3, part 2, p.56

• • ALT1: ... that Notharctus, one of the first discovered fossil primates in North America, was historically considered a close relative of creodonts? Source: Gregory, William K (1920-9) On the Structure and Relations of Notharctus, an American Eocene Primate, Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History,Volume 3, part 2, pp.57-58
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: I had technically started the expansion on the 11th of May, but I have been continuously expanding and rewriting parts of the article for the past 2 or so weeks. I hope that fits with the nomination rules, though if not I entirely understand.

5x expanded by Multituberculate15 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Multituberculate15 (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC).

• Starting by noting the nomination window issue and opting to IAR in this nom. Starting review, and adding main page compatible image.--Kevmin § 21:21, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Article expansion long enough, though nominated outside the nom window, I choose to allow it given the note by the Nominator and their newness to the DYK process. Article expansion is neutral and well sourced, I do not see any instances or indications of policy issues, CLOP, or copyviolations. Preference is given to Alt0. Good to go.--Kevmin § 16:49, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Geologic range

A well expanded article all told, Multituberculate15, congrats. I'll note this here and not bog down the DYK nomination as that is looking fairly straight forward at this point. One section that is missing is a section discussing the true geologic/stratigraphic range (such as done for Palaeocarpinus).--Kevmin § 01:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I’ll like to add a portion about stratigraphy, I think that’s a good idea. I just need to be better versed when it comes to the basics in that kind of stuff (stratigraphy, geology). In the meantime I’ll try to look into it and read up. Multituberculate15 (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)