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.
... that lifeforms that dominated Earth between 3.5 and 1.5 billion years ago still exist at Laguna Socompa in Argentina, their highest present-day occurrence?
Overall: You haven't provided a citation here, but the hook is cited in the article in the Stromatoliths section. --SkyGazer 512Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Per WT:DYK discussion I am reopening this as it needs a new hook and perhaps a closer review:
ALT1: ... that biological structures growing in Laguna Socompa today were the dominant expression of life between 3.5 and 1.5 billion years ago?JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The reviewer might want to consider adding something about the elevation or specify that they are aldo found elsewhere. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Looking at this afresh, I agree that the article meets the DYK criteria of newness, length, neutrality and policy. I think neither of the proposed hooks is satisfactory as stromatoliths are not lifeforms or even biological structures, they are rocks. How about ALT2? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
ALT2... that stromatoliths found at Laguna Socompa are the first to be discovered at elevations exceeding 3,500 metres (11,500 ft)?
Indeed, they are biologically-formed structures but definitely not lifeforms, but anyway, would you be happy with ALT2, or would you like to suggest another hook? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
See, I was thinking that "biological structures" was a suitable term for this, rather than the overly technical "bioherm". ALT2 is not interesting enough IMO. Perhaps:
ALT3: ...that stromatolites, which between 3.5 and 1.5 billion years ago were the dominant expression of life, still grow today in Laguna Socompa?
Unless that implies too much that they only grow there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't like ALT3 at all. As I said before, they are rocks and could be formed but cannot grow because they are not alive. Similarly, they cannot be the "dominant expression of life" because the are not alive. The cyanobacteria may have been the dominant lifeform between 3.5 and 1.5 billion years ago (I don't know), and they may have created stromatolites at that time, but the stromatolites did not grow but were formed. If you don't agree with what I am saying, perhaps we had better get a new reviewer. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
They aren't just rocks but fossils (when dead) and in that capacity they are indeed the most important "expression of the existence of life" then. So yeah, I figure I disagree here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Graeme Bartlett: I wonder if you would be able to help here because we are at an impasse. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
If you want a third opinion, stromatolites do grow in size, and they are an expression of life, in the same way that other fossils or footprints or litter is an expression. So ALT3 does look to be correct and interesting enough. ALT2 fails to mention that they are still live, and so may not be correct, and also is not very exciting. ALT1 sounds as if the stromatolite has been growing there for billions of years. The original hook was correct if the stromatolith was not piped. it could be varied as:
alt0.1 that stromatolite forming lifeforms that dominated Earth between 3.5 and 1.5 billion years ago still exist at Laguna Socompa in Argentina, their highest present-day occurrence?
Thank you Graeme Bartlett. My understanding of the position was obviously wrong. Approving ALT3 and alt0.1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
You haven't provided a citation here, but the hook is cited in the article in the Stromatoliths section. --SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 14:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Per WT:DYK discussion I am reopening this as it needs a new hook and perhaps a closer review:
Thank you Graeme Bartlett. My understanding of the position was obviously wrong. Approving ALT3 and alt0.1. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)