Template:Did you know nominations/Maule tuco-tuco
- 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 Montanabw(talk) 03:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Maule tuco-tuco
[edit]- ... that fur and bone fragments from what is thought to be a Maule tuco-tuco, have been found in 5,000 year-old owl pellets?
- Reviewed: Good Vibrations
5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 08:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC).
No issues found with article, ready for human review.
- ✓ This article has been expanded from 125 chars to 2295 chars since 21:36, 09 November 2015 (UTC), a 18.36-fold expansion
- ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 2295 characters
- ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
- ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
- ✓ A copyright violation is unlikely (1.0% confidence; confirm)
- Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
- No overall issues detected
- ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 115 characters
- ✓ Cwmhiraeth has more than 5 DYK credits. A QPQ review of Template:Did you know nominations/Good Vibrations was performed for this nomination.
Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 23:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Looks good to go. Bot correctly identifies 5x expansion. Citations that I could access all check out, hook fact was not on an online-viewable page of the source but I am happy to AGF. Sources are good quality publications and article is fully cited. No close paraphrasing detected noticed and article is well written. QPQ is complete and hook is interesting - Dumelow (talk) 19:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
