Template:Did you know nominations/Wing-assisted incline running
- 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Wing-assisted incline running edit
- ... that wing-assisted incline running (WAIR) is a hypothesis about the origin of avian flight used by modern partridges?
- Reviewed: Martian lava tubes
5x expanded by Ferahgo the Assassin (talk), Reid,iain james (talk). Nominated by Reid,iain james (talk) at 14:25, 10 April 2014 (UTC).
The article is nearly unreadable at current as most sentences has four or more clauses. Please break it into smaller, more easily understood sentences. Also the stub tag needs addressed - either just removed if the article is not missing an major aspects, or the article expanded to cover the major aspects of the theory. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- @ThaddeusB: I have copyedited the article so it is more understandable to the average layperson, I have also addressed the stub and orphan templates, and linked it to other articles. Could you go over the article now? IJReid (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, that definitely helped. Could you unpack this sentence?: "Additionally, examination of the work and power requirements for the behaviour if the pectoral muscles during WAIR at different angles of incline, demonstrated by increases in these requirements, both as WAIR angles increased and in the transition from WAIR to flapping flight." I am having a hard time figuring out what it is supposed to mean. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- @ThaddeusB: I have completely changed the sentence, how understandable is it now? IJReid (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that clears up my concerns. Article length and date are good. No copyright or other policy concerns detected. Fact is interesting and supported by provided citations (source used is accepted in good faith as offline material; other online sources in article verify the info.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
