Template:Did you know nominations/Olive tanager
- 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 — Maile (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Olive tanager, Ochre-breasted tanager, Lemon-spectacled tanager
[edit]( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
- ... that the female olive tanager, lemon-spectacled tanager and ochre-breasted tanager are difficult to distinguish?
- ALT1:... that identifying the female olive tanager, lemon-spectacled tanager and ochre-breasted tanager is made easier by the fact that they do not share a common range?
- Reviewed: List of accolades received by Mary Kom (film)
- Comment: Also reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Guess This House, Happy Campers
5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 06:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC).
Article expansions are new enough, but Olive tanager is not long enough it seems. The character count of prose (including subspecies descriptions) is 789, meaning a 5x expansion should be at least 3,945 characters. The current article is 2406 from what I find. lemon-spectacled tanager and ochre-breasted tanager are both long enough expansions. --Kevmin § 02:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Kevmin: Using the page size count function normally used at DYK, the article is 2397B now and was 420B before expansion, ie a fivefold expansion. This page count function does not include bulletted points, and theoretically one could take a stub article with a number of bullet points and convert it into prose and it could qualify as a five-fold expansion without any additional material at all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Confirming that DYKcheck considers this a valid 5x expansion from 420 prose characters to 2397 prose characters as of August 29. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I usually dont include bullet points as they are not in prose structure. The reason that I included the bullet points this time was that those points were written as, an read as prose themselves and could have stood in the article as regular sentences. If @BlueMoonset: agrees that they are still to be regarded as bullet points then I cant say much, though it seems like a notable loophole. @Cwmhiraeth:--Kevmin § 17:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Kevmin, I see what you mean, but bullet points, like tables, are not considered prose. This can indeed bite both ways. My confirmation took this all into account. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- I usually dont include bullet points as they are not in prose structure. The reason that I included the bullet points this time was that those points were written as, an read as prose themselves and could have stood in the article as regular sentences. If @BlueMoonset: agrees that they are still to be regarded as bullet points then I cant say much, though it seems like a notable loophole. @Cwmhiraeth:--Kevmin § 17:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Confirming that DYKcheck considers this a valid 5x expansion from 420 prose characters to 2397 prose characters as of August 29. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Kevmin: Using the page size count function normally used at DYK, the article is 2397B now and was 420B before expansion, ie a fivefold expansion. This page count function does not include bulletted points, and theoretically one could take a stub article with a number of bullet points and convert it into prose and it could qualify as a five-fold expansion without any additional material at all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Article expansions are new enough and long enough. Hook is not found in all three articles, with no mention of the Olive tanager in the ochre-breasted tanager article and vice versa. There are no identifiable copyright or policy issues in the three articles and the references are neutral and cited. I would recommend Alt1 when the articles are updated with the hook information.--Kevmin § 01:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- OK, information added, based on the lemon-spectacled tanager entry on p318 of the source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
