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 Desertarun (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
... that Cimoliopterus was among the first pterosaurs to be depicted as models (pictured) in Crystal Palace Park in the 1850s? Source for being among first such models:[1] Recent source identifying the old models as Cimoliopterus[2] 1854 source identifying them as P. cuvieri (now Cimoliopterus):[3]
Cimoliopterus dunni
ALT1:... that while the first fossil of the pterosaur Cimoliopterus was reported in 1851, it was unclear how it looked until more complete related species (example life restoration pictured) were found in the 1980s? Sources for this and other English fossils being mysterious until better fossils were found: Witton, M. P. (2013). Pterosaurs: Natural History, Evolution, Anatomy p. 154-155 and [4]
Overall: Fantastic work with this article. It should be noted that the second source for the first hook establishes the sculptures as depictions of Cimoliopterus using an older synonym, Pterodactylus cuvieri. Given the timeframe, this seems to check out, as that term dates to 1851, and the earliest that work on the sculptures could've been started seems to be October of that year. As far as images go, the modern rendition of Cimoliopterus dunni is certainly the most eye-catching, and is definitely clearer at 100px than the photo of the statues, though I believe both are suitable. It should also be noted that the rendition of C. dunni is the creation of nominator FunkMonk, though after review of his sources for the reconstruction and assessment against WP:OI I believe it doesn't constitute radically subjective artistic interpretation and should be considered acceptable. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I should note that the restoration has also been reviewed at WP:paleoart, and the sources used are listed in its file description. As for the model image, I think it's more suitable if the fact about the sculptures is chosen, and we do have an alternate image of them[5], that may or may not look better at small size. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
In that case, there is certainly no question about the validity of the image, as I'm sure the volunteers there are more knowledgeable than I. And yes, I should have specified that the choice of image is dependent on the selected hook. I think the current photo of the statues would be more ideal than the image of them from the front, since the tree branches make it difficult to discern at 100px. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Fantastic work with this article. It should be noted that the second source for the first hook establishes the sculptures as depictions of Cimoliopterus using an older synonym, Pterodactylus cuvieri. Given the timeframe, this seems to check out, as that term dates to 1851, and the earliest that work on the sculptures could've been started seems to be October of that year. As far as images go, the modern rendition of Cimoliopterus dunni is certainly the most eye-catching, and is definitely clearer at 100px than the photo of the statues, though I believe both are suitable. It should also be noted that the rendition of C. dunni is the creation of nominator FunkMonk, though after review of his sources for the reconstruction and assessment against WP:OI I believe it doesn't constitute radically subjective artistic interpretation and should be considered acceptable. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Large_Crystal_Palace_pterosaurs.jpg){kind=link}