Template:Did you know nominations/Grizzled tree-kangaroo
- 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 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Grizzled tree-kangaroo edit
... that the diet of the grizzled tree-kangaroo (pictured) includes the leaves and fruit of fig trees and in captivity it has been fed mealworms and boiled eggs?
- Reviewed: Sy Sutcliffe
5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 06:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC).
Expansion OK, time limit for expansion OK, neutral enough, no plagiarism or copyvio. It's a pity that all the information available on its history in captivity has not been included but that is not a DYK matter. This would be good to go, but I'm going to suggest an ALT which I think is slightly hookier, so somebody else will have to give it the green tick (I've tried waving my arms, shouting and flashing a bit of leg at other nominations with no success in attracting a green ticker, so this time I'm going to throw wads of money in the air. Look, 100-dollar bills!).- ALT1
... that although the grizzled tree-kangaroo (pictured) feeds mainly on leaves and figs in the wild, in captivity it has been fed boiled eggs, biscuits and sardines?Belle (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm happy with ALT1 (which I have tweaked a bit). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- The reference about feeding an animal that in the wild lived in leaves and trees such things as sardines and boiled eggs in the zoo is very strange. From the context it seems that this was done in the 19th century, the source (a random webs.com site with no author or affiliation, are these things suddenly considered reliable?) is very confusing. I suspect nowadays no one would do such a thing, it sounds like a recipe for gastric upset and worse to feed a herbivore a protein-rich diet. Can't you all do better? You guys really need to exercise editorial judgement. 50.201.246.221 (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for dipping your beak in, honey. Despite undermining your credibility a bit with that, I'm sure you have a point. Not about the feeding (as while the strange captive diet is almost certainly historical the hook doesn't make any claim that it is current practice; "it has been" not "it is"), but about the suitability of the website as a source. It seems rather detailed for it to be a hoax, but that doesn't mean it is reliable under Wikipedia's rules. Cwmhiraeth, can you say why it should be considered a suitable source? Belle (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- The proposed hook fact was a bit trivial and I have removed the bit about zoos from the article. Nevertheless, the information in the Papuan Mammals source is well referenced and should be acceptable on the matter of diet in the wild etc. Suggesting a different hook:
- Thanks for dipping your beak in, honey. Despite undermining your credibility a bit with that, I'm sure you have a point. Not about the feeding (as while the strange captive diet is almost certainly historical the hook doesn't make any claim that it is current practice; "it has been" not "it is"), but about the suitability of the website as a source. It seems rather detailed for it to be a hoax, but that doesn't mean it is reliable under Wikipedia's rules. Cwmhiraeth, can you say why it should be considered a suitable source? Belle (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- The reference about feeding an animal that in the wild lived in leaves and trees such things as sardines and boiled eggs in the zoo is very strange. From the context it seems that this was done in the 19th century, the source (a random webs.com site with no author or affiliation, are these things suddenly considered reliable?) is very confusing. I suspect nowadays no one would do such a thing, it sounds like a recipe for gastric upset and worse to feed a herbivore a protein-rich diet. Can't you all do better? You guys really need to exercise editorial judgement. 50.201.246.221 (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm happy with ALT1 (which I have tweaked a bit). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- ALT2 ... that the grizzled tree-kangaroo (pictured) can leap with agility from tree to tree? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- ALT3 ... that the grizzled tree-kangaroo (pictured) hops from tree to tree? EEng (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- I prefer ALT2. Kangaroos in general can hop but most are not agile enough to climb trees let alone leap from one tree to another. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's kind of what I had in mind in shortening the hook. I think readers will be startled enough by the image of a kangaroo jumping among trees that they'll want to click -- to my mind mentioning that they do so with agility almost waters it down. (Although, on the other hand, if an RS said "The creature's tree-to-tree hopping is, at best, very clumsy" then that should definitely be included -- the only thing more amusing than the image of a kangaroo jumping from tree to tree is that of a kangaroo jumping clumsily from tree to tree.) But I leave it to you. EEng (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
- I prefer ALT2. Kangaroos in general can hop but most are not agile enough to climb trees let alone leap from one tree to another. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Just struck the original and ALT1 hooks, since the captivity food information is no longer in the article. Belle, since your ALT1 hook is no longer in play and you did the original review, would you be willing to please check the subsequent ALT hooks? We do tend to give some deference to the nominator when it comes to hooks, so long as their proposal is accurate and interesting. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Re-reviewing. The 5x expansion is new enough and long enough. The contentious webside and data cited to it have been removed, the remaining references are verifiable and within policy. No further policy issues identified with the article. Image is free-use and not under copyright. Article looks good to go.--Kevmin § 22:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
