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 Vaticidalprophet talk 19:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Felis wenzensis

• ... that an ancient Polish wildcat had larger teeth than modern wildcats? Source: Stach, Jan (1961). "On two carnivores from the Pliocene breccia of Węże". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 6 (4): 321–329.
  • ALT1: ... that the ancient Polish wildcat Felis wenzensis is distinguished from the modern wildcat by its larger teeth? Source: Stach, Jan (1961). "On two carnivores from the Pliocene breccia of Węże". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 6 (4): 321–329.
  • Reviewed: [[]]
  • Comment: My fourth DYKN. Credit to Generalissima for the initial hook suggestion.

Created by SilverTiger12 (talk). Self-nominated at 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Felis wenzensis; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Quite a pretty article! It is new and long enough and the sources are excellent. I see no copyright issues with the text but I am curious about the photograph. How exactly does it meet our copyright standards? The copyright holder is presumably the photographer, Jan Stach, who only died in 1975, and the photograph was only published 62 years ago. Also, I would suggest an alternative hook:

• ALT1: ... that an ancient wildcat species is known only from a part of the jaw of a single animal discovered in Poland?

I believe an average reader would be more interested in the fact that a whole species can be described from a few teeth than by a teeth length comparison. Surtsicna (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The photo was published in 1961, yes, but under CC-BY-4.0 license which makes it useable on Wikipedia. Also, your ALT1 isn't that interesting- many prehistoric animals are only known from partial jaws. I'd prefer a variation of my ALT1, honestly. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

The website does mention a Creative Commons Attribution License. I understand that ALT1 (the one I proposed) may not be interesting to you or other people who know something about paleontology, but we should aim to make hooks interesting to "readers with no special knowledge or interest" (WP:DYKINT). In any case, I leave this to you and/or a third party. Surtsicna (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)