Template:Did you know nominations/International parrot trade

The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 11:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

International parrot trade edit

(

)

... that in the 1980s, an estimated 50,000 to 150,000 neotropical parrots were illegally imported annually into the United States?

Created/expanded by Willgregjohnson (talk). Nominated by WikiDan61 (talk) at 14:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is new, has a lot of content, many citations, looks great, and the article creator even made graphs to show the data. This article looks great. I could not confirm the DYK fact because it is in a book and not online, but it seems like a scholarly source. The content seems summarized from many sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Uh-uh. The references cited lack essential data, such as page numbers (none are given, including in the ref used for the hook!), and at least one is awfully formatted, with a spaghetti rawlink running the length of my screen. I'm also puzzled about the editorial comment as to what info is lacking (under note 5). There are two glaring "citation needed" templates in the article. I also note that the capitalization of random words ("Wildlife Trade", "Parrots", "See Also") is not compliant with WP:MOS, and I think the same applies to the very tiny sections into which the article has been divided. I'm not trying to bring the article down, but it looks like it's not in fact ready for DYK. Dahn (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I have improved the specificity of some of the cited references. Many I do not have access to, so I am unable to improve them. However, this is not a good article review, this is a DYK review. The article seems to meet all of the DYK criteria, and the DYK criteria do not require that the article meet GA criteria. By its very nature as a new article, it is likely that the article will need work, but the hook fact is cited, and I believe we can assume good faith that the citation is valid (especially considering the validity of all other citations in the article). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but please look over WP:WIADYK. For one, the hook must be cited, and a citation to a voluminous document is not complete if it doesn't give the page number and an indication of the edition used (the year of publication, most commonly). I believe that DYK citations, within and without the hook, are not exempt from the definitions of WP:CITE: "Inline citations should additionally give the relevant page number or range of page numbers." Indeed, this is not a GA review, but the presence of such articles on the front page means that extra care is taken to tidy them up - a GA would have to be complete and tidy, a DYK would have to be long enough and tidy. For what I mean by tidy, see our Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines, especially stuff under "Other supplementary rules for the article" (I know, it's a bore to read through it, but it saves us a lot of time in the long run). Regards, Dahn (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
And one more comment: WikiDan, you say you do not have access to all the sources used by Willgregjohnson, which is perfectly acceptable (since you do not author the article); but that is also why Willgregjohnson should have properly formatted his citations to begin with - most are to be considered useless until such time as he retrieves those pages, or someone else gets access to all of his bibliography (let's not hold our breath). And then we AGF on offline sources. Dahn (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

OK -- found the specific report online, opened it and found a page number. The URL and page number have been added to the citation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done the same for all citations I could find online. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've tried to MOS the article, I hope it's better now. ~~I still think something should be done about the glaring "citationneeded" template in the middle of the article.~~ Dahn (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
~~Alright, that's been sorted. I have some concerns about close paraphrasing (the hook itself is a calque of the source wording), but I'll leave others to weigh in.~~ Dahn (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I've run the article through duplicate detection, and, though there are some small verbatim renditions of bureaucratic newspeak, I see no real copyvio concern from the sources I was able to access. I'll okay this:
Good job, guys. Dahn (talk) 17:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)