Talk:Protomelission

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. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The Cambrian fossil Protomelission, now interpreted as a seaweed

• ... that fossils thought to be ancient marine animals have been reinterpreted as seaweeds? Source:
  • Reviewed:

Created by Smith609 (talk). Self-nominated at 20:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Protomelission; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: needs QPQ and then ready to go! Zeromonk (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

No articles need reviewing so unclear how to meet qpq requirement here? Must be ten years since I was last involved with dyk so not clear how to check whether I already have reviewed the necessary number of hooks in any case. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

- QPQ now complete for Rumrich spy case, below; status updated accordingly. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Intro paragraph wording

The intro paragraph might be a bit heavy on technical terminology. Specifically, the word 'cataphract' is used I think to mean overlapping/complex, but links to the page on cataphract the armored cavalry. Is this intentional? There does not seem to be a separate page on cataphract as used here. Zarathusa (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)