Template:Did you know nominations/Angolan African dormouse

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 Yoninah (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Angolan African dormouse

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the Angolan African dormouse has been assessed as "data deficient" by the IUCN because so little is known about it? Source: "Justification: Listed as Data Deficient in view of continuing uncertainty as to its taxonomic status, extent of occurrence, natural history, threats and conservation status."

• Reviewed: Bouncing ball

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 20:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC).

• I reviewed this one. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, 5x expansion verified by DYKcheck, and it's long enough (2300+ characters of prose), but I have some concerns about citations.  :**There aren't any citations in the lead paragraph, where a number of facts are related. And the citations in the rest of the piece all rely on a single source, and generally come at the end of a long paragraph. Can any other sources be found -- even one or two more would help. If not, how can the footnotes appear more frequently (and with more precision?) to make sure it's clear where assertions are coming from?

Thank you for reviewing this article. The MoS guidelines do not advocate having citations in the lead, because this section should be a summary of the text in the body of the article, where the information should be cited. Similarly, a citation at the end of a paragraph is meant to cover all the information before it, which in the paragraph without other sources, means the whole paragraph. There is no need for intermediate citations. I have added another source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, Cwmhiraeth -- I think I read WP:LEADCITE a little differently than you, in that I don't think "do not advocate having citations in the lead" is exactly the summary I'd give. But in looking back at it, I'll acknowledge that almost all the claims in the lead are in fact cited directly later in the article, and I'll defer to that practice as being clearly in line with LEADCITE. I would ask, though, that you provide a citation for the very last claim in the lead -- that it is "thought to be generally uncommon", since I don't see that exact claim clearly cited in the body of the article. As far as one citation per paragraph, while I'll agree that it's within the bounds of acceptability, I'm concerned that it isn't ideally conforming to WP:INTEGRITY -- someone who wanted to add material to any of those paragraphs would either have to write it totally separately, or else do a lot of work to copy your citation multiple times if they added sentences and information into the middle of paragraphs. If I look at the example at WP:CITEDENSE, I think it might be a useful guide here -- placing a citation at the end of the description paragraph covers information about coloring, hair features, and closely related species. Do you disagree? If so, is this a case where I'm expected to decide if my interpretation is right, or should we invite other folks' commentary? I'm trying to both be respectful of your own contributions as an author (and they're clearly valuable!) and of what I believe to be our standards for a DYK article. If you think I'm misreading INTEGRITY or CITEDENSE, help me understand what I'm missing. Thanks! Jwrosenzweig (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• • At times, too, there are sentences that feel excessively casual - for example, in reference to the animal's tail, one sentence reads "It is basically the same colour as the back but some white hairs are mixed with the darker ones and the tip is white." Especially the phrase "basically the same" just strikes me as a little chatty in tone, rather than being a more clinical description.

I have altered this wording. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Awesome -- I'm not concerned about this at this point, thanks to your change. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• • And I hate to be tough about this, but the text in this article is just much too similar to the text in another article that Cwmhiraeth has been expanding, Rock dormouse. A sentence like "The fur on the back is soft, smooth and rather long" might be accurate of both animals, which are presumably very similar, but the two physical descriptions are so similar that I think there must either be a copy-and-paste error here, or just over-reliance on a sort of "template" approach to writing these descriptions. I'm not sure how we handle this kind of challenge -- it's not the same to me as an excessively close paraphrase or borrowing of language from some other site online -- but I feel like this is something Cwmhiraeth can fix and ought to.

Rock dormouse was written within 7 days before this article, and copying some of the text of one newly expanded article into another is generally viewed as permissible. However, any copied text should not count towards the required character count for the five-fold expansion. You can ask about this on the DYK discussion page if you wish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jwrosenzweig: Actually Rock dormouse was written after rather than before this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, thanks for the clarification, but I wasn't concerned about the required character count for expansion -- I think you've clearly done enough work to warrant consideration! I just wonder if there's a way to avoid exact duplication of phrasing between articles, but maybe there are only so many ways to say this? In any case, I guess I'll go with this -- since this article was written first, if any article's wording ought to be changed to avoid precise duplication, it would be Rock dormouse, I'll withdraw this concern also. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• • I think the hook is clear, and clearly cited -- it might be of interest, but I'm just slightly hesitant, since that exact same hook could be used by any of the mammals on this list, not to mention all the non-mammalian species also listed as "data deficient". I don't necessarily see a better hook in the article, though (the beehive story is interesting but it's not cited at the end of the sentence), and I don't want to be churlish about the hook. If Cwmhiraeth can come up with another hook, though, I'd be pleased to see it.

What you say is correct. I wondered about use of the beehive, how about

• ALT1 ... that the Angolan African dormouse usually occurs in trees but has been found in the roof of a hut and in an old beehive? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I prefer this hook, and think it's what I'd recommend. I'll withdraw the hook concern as well -- thanks! Jwrosenzweig (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

For now, it's a but I'm hoping Cwmhiraeth can pretty easily resolve the issues I've noted. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 07:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: at this point, it's a while we sort out my last remaining concern about citations. I hope you can see that I'm not at all inflexible on this (I can see, personally, that you're open to dialogue too, which I appreciate), and I'm confident we can arrive at some agreement -- and I'm also perfectly open to someone coming along and helping me see that I'm misinterpreting the documents I'm working from. Anyway, thanks for your initial responses, and I look forward to resolving these last little issues soon. My best to you, and thanks again for your work: Jwrosenzweig (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added and cited mention of it being an uncommon species. As for the rest of the points you raise, I would ask @BlueMoonset: for a response. I have written and submitted to DYK large numbers of species articles of a similar type to this one, and the citing of these has generally been deemed acceptable. BlueMoonset is our expert on DYK matters and interpreting guidelines. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig, Cwmhiraeth, the accepted guideline at DYK for citations is D2, which reads, in part: A rule of thumb is one inline citation per paragraph, excluding the intro, plot summaries, and paragraphs which summarize other cited content. If there's a particular fact that seems controversial or otherwise needs support, or an uncited quote, the reviewer can certainly ask for an inline source citation to be supplied. Regarding WP:CITEDENSE, it specifically states that it is the subsequent editor's job to organize the citations to make their relationship between the text and the sources clear, so that we maintain text-source integrity. In other words, it is not our concern that a text might be added to later such that new sourcing may need to be added and the original source may need to be given additional citations around it; that is the sole responsibility of the editor adding the new material. It is clear in WP:INTEGRITY that whole paragraphs may have a single citation (i.e., If a sentence or paragraph is footnoted with a source), so that should not be an issue here so long as the given source supports the paragraph in question. Finally, because DYK articles are typically new and not necessarily fully fleshed out, there can be some material that is uncited. The hook, however, must have inline source citations supporting its fact(s) placed no later than the end of the article sentence in which the fact appears. I think I've covered everything here, but if I've missed anything or am not clear, please feel free to ask. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to you both -- to you, @Cwmhiraeth: for your patience and clear communication, and to you, @BlueMoonset: for clarifying how these policies apply in the setting of DYK nominations in particular (and for clearing up a couple of aspects generally). Given this information, I'm comfortable handing this its and thanking you, Cwmhiraeth, for your efforts in continuing to expand our coverage of the creatures of the world in their diverse and wondrous forms. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)