Template:Did you know nominations/Barred cuckoo-dove
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Barred cuckoo-dove edit
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links: )
Illustration of the barred cuckoo-dove
... that the barred cuckoo-dove has a loud kro-uum or u-va vocalization? Source: [1]
5x expanded by Adityavagarwal (talk) and 7&6=thirteen (talk). Self-nominated at 17:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC).
QPQ done, created in time, expanded 5-fold, hook is interesting, source checks out, no copyvio issues, within policy. Good to go! Futurist110 (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Futurist110 Would you like to check out another alt?
Would provideProvided another QPQ if you like the other alt too! - ALT1 ... that the barred cuckoo-dove (pictured) is similar to the little cuckoo-dove, but is larger and darker, and is black-barred at the mantle, breast, covert, and tail? Source: [2] Adityavagarwal (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- FWIW, I thought that we might add one of the pictures. Maybe the historical artist's rendering? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Added! Adityavagarwal (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- FWIW, I thought that we might add one of the pictures. Maybe the historical artist's rendering? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Futurist110 Would you like to check out another alt?
- Your alt-hook here is perfectly fine with me!
- Also, please tell me exactly what else you want me to take a look at! Futurist110 (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Futurist110 That is it lol. :P Nothing more. It would be my pleasure if I could help you with something too (please let me know if there would be anything either now or in the future too that I could help you with)! Adityavagarwal (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Futurist110 Please add a tick at the end so that it gets picked up. Thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Done! Futurist110 (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Pulled from prep. There is no evidence here that the second article, little cuckoo-dove, has been given a full review, and that needs to be done before this nomination can properly be approved and promoted. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Futurist110 pinging! Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- No, I'm sorry, Adityavagarwal. Given the issues with this review so far, I think we need to have a new reviewer do the full check of Little cuckoo-dove and double-check the whole. Futurist110 has had his or her chance; it's time for someone new. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- Anybody would be fine! I thought it had to be the previous reviewer itself, so pinged him. Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Approving ALT1. Little cuckoo-dove is 5x expanded, in time, long enough, sourced, has no apparent copyvios and a (second) QPQ. ALT1 hook fact appears almost verbatim in the Barred cuckoo-dove article, and is sourced with an inline/offline citation. Adityavagarwal, non-DYK, but footnotes 2 and 5 in the Barred cuckoo-dove article have errors. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- There are no format errors in references two and five. No "harv errors." The WP:SFN format will only directly link to the books when there are four or fewer authors. If there are more than four, than the shortened footnote appears as "... et al." Good catch, but wrong conclusion. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:23, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
