- 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) 05:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Forrest's pika edit
... that in 1994, the Forrest's pika was assessed as insufficiently known on the IUCN Red List of Endangered Species, which was re-assessed as near threatened in 1996, and least concern in 2008?Source: Previously published Red List assessments: {{IUCN2008|assessor=Smith, A.T.|assessor2=Johnston, C.H.|name-list-style=amp|year=2008|id=15048|title=Ochotona forresti|downloaded=10 April 2009}}- ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
5x expanded by Adityavagarwal (talk). Self-nominated at 22:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC).
Recently expanded fivefold, long enough, cited, within policy, and QPC review. Hook needs some reworking though, the word "which" does not work here (appears to refer to the IUCN Red List). Consider:
ALT1:... that the Forrest's pika, previously assessed as insufficiently known on the IUCN Red List, was re-assessed as near threatened in 1996 and as least concern in 2008?Source: Previously published Red List assessments: {{IUCN2008|assessor=Smith, A.T.|assessor2=Johnston, C.H.|name-list-style=amp|year=2008|id=15048|title=Ochotona forresti|downloaded=10 April 2009}} --NoGhost (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)- @NoGhost: Looks great! Thanks a lot for your review. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Quick comment: the IUCN reassesses species routinely. Unless it was a surprising reassessment, I'd suggest looking for another hook, though a reviewer may still choose to promote this. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: Thanks for your inputs! The change of assessment is the catch here. Although, here is another hook
- ALT2:...that the Forrest's pika had previously been treated as a subspecies of the Moupin pika, the Royle's pika, and the Steppe pika at different times?
Approving ALT1 and ALT2; striking ALT0. Hooks check out, and I've added the appropriate inline citation. I actually prefer and find interesting ALT0, being someone who does not know that the IUCN reassesses species routinely. I would also imagine (though I'm guessing) that it is common for classifications of species to frequently be in doubt, which would in any event give ALT2 (which I just find not very interesting generally) the same problem. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Usernameunique I have merged the DYK for the Moupin pika too (bolded in ALT2 now)! Does it look fine? Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest not to merge, see Template:Did you know nominations/Moupin pika. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- I think it is alright with a single hook! Adityavagarwal (talk) 15:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- I suggest not to merge, see Template:Did you know nominations/Moupin pika. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Usernameunique I have merged the DYK for the Moupin pika too (bolded in ALT2 now)! Does it look fine? Adityavagarwal (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
- Quick comment: the IUCN reassesses species routinely. Unless it was a surprising reassessment, I'd suggest looking for another hook, though a reviewer may still choose to promote this. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @NoGhost: Looks great! Thanks a lot for your review. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
