Template:Did you know nominations/Coppery-tailed coucal
- 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 Allen3 talk 18:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Coppery-tailed coucal
[edit]
... that the coppery-tailed coucal is a bird of swamps, riverside vegetation, seasonal lakes and inundated floodplains?
- Reviewed: The Wolves of Midwinter
5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 12:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC).
Per DYK Reviewing guide In addition to at least 1,500 characters of readable prose, the article must not be a stub. This requires a judgement call, since there is no mechanical stub definition (see the Croughton-London rule). If an article is, in fact, a stub, you should temporarily reject the nomination; if the article is not a stub, ensure that it is correctly marked as a non-stub, by removing any stub template(s) in the article, and changing any talk-page assessments to start-class or higher.
— Maile (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Article is new enough and long enough and appears to be compliant with all policies. The suggested fact, however, is boring. How about
- ALT1: ... that incubation of coppery-tailed coucal (pictured) eggs is probably done only by males?
- as somewhat more interesting? --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- I am happy with ALT1 and have added an inline citation. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
New reviewer needed to check ALT1, and also to give a more complete account of what was checked: "appears to be compliant with all policies" is nowhere near specific enough: it is unclear that this include checks for neutrality, close paraphrasing, and so on. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Expanded review: Confirm review by ThaddeusB that it is new enough (expansion 15 June, nom 15 June) and long enough. QPQ done. ALT1 is acceptable, hooky enough and short enough, and checks out with online citation #4. I have added above a cropped version of the image in the article, which is free. No problem with disambig links or with access to external links. The article text is objective and neutral, and is sufficiently referenced with at least one citation in each para. All citation links checked for sources of copyvio and close paraphrasing; none found. Good to go with ALT1. --Storye book (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, Storye book. I've reformatted the new image to match DYK requirements. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)