# Talk:Eocarcharia

There is plenty of literature available- more information needed Robot 0123456789 (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Why can't you edit it? FunkMonk (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kevmin: I am unfamiliar with this process and somewhat surprised the article is being nominated for DYK in the first place, so my apologies that the issues haven't been taken care of earlier. I agree that the proposed hook is not particularly impactful (for a general audience), at least in the way it is currently presented. The following might be more suitable, based on the same source included above:
... that the carnivorous Eocarcharia may be a chimaeric dinosaur, known from bones of at least two unrelated species mistakenly combined?
I created an image for the page (reviewed and approved here, per WP:PALEO mandates) that helps to illustrate this point and could potentially be included in the DYK, formatted below:

'Alt1... that the carnivorous Eocarcharia may be a chimaeric dinosaur, known from bones of two unrelated species (pictured) mistakenly combined?
I have also updated the article to include a citation for this hook in the lead. Thank you for your comments, your input is appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
@SlvrHwk and Augustios Paleo:, the added citation does clean up that part, and the suggested alt hooks are more accessible already. What if we pipe Chimera (paleontology) to chimera so it flows a bit easier, and the second half could be reworded a bit to "..., its bones coming from two different dinosaur families?" or similar--Kevmin § 04:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
@Kevmin: That works as well, I too think that the chimeric nature of the dinosaur should be the focus. Saying "..., its bones coming from two different dinosaur families?" works as that is basically the definition of a chimera in paleontology.
@SlvrHwk, Augustios Paleo,  and Surtsicna: does anyone object to Alt2"...that the carnivorous Eocarcharia (fossils illustrated) may be a "chimaera", its bones coming from two different dinosaur families?"--Kevmin § 02:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
No objections from me. It sounds very good! Surtsicna (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
 With the referencing and hook issues dealt with, I see no more problems with the nomination. Article expansion new enough and long enough. Article well sourced, neutral in presentation, hook cited and confirmed. Image main page complaint. Good to go.--Kevmin § 17:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)