Template:Did you know nominations/Melanerpes

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 Yoninah (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Melanerpes, Yellow-fronted woodpecker, White-fronted woodpecker, Golden-naped woodpecker, Yellow-tufted woodpecker edit

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

)

Yellow-fronted woodpecker

... that the yellow-fronted (pictured), white-fronted, golden-naped and yellow-tufted woodpeckers are included in the genus Melanerpes which is characterised by black, white, red and yellow plumage? Source: "Most species boldly patterned in black and white with red and yellow."

Reviewed: Christoph Siebert
Comment: Also reviewed Maurice S. Osser (double article hook), Chanchal Kumar Majumdar and Gifts (novel)

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 06:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC).

I'm new to reviewing these, but this hook seems really wordy and abstract, and sorta pedantic. I guess that sounds harsh, but it's simply a long list of species from a genus, followed by a common trait of that genus. Are we even allowed to make a whole list of bolded articles like that? Shouldn't only the main wikilink be bold? How about something like "...that the common trait of all melanerpes woodpeckers is black, white, and yellow plumage?" Just listing a bunch of species in the genus feels like boring filler. — Kaz (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kazvorpal: Thank you for reviewing the article. The reason that all those species are mentioned is because I expanded five articles so it is a five article hook. That means five times as much for you to review, so move on to some other nomination if you wish! If you stick with it, you should look at each article in turn and see if they meet the DYK criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't need to look at each article, because my objection centers around "Content: interesting to a broad audience". A laundry list of species names is not going to interest many people at all. I suggest something more like "...that the common trait of all melanerpes woodpeckers is black, white, and yellow plumage?" — Kaz (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure, that might be a more interesting hook, but it hasn't got the necessary link to each of the five articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

But isn't the whole point for it to be interesting? It's not purely to promote a whole laundry list of articles generically. Or is that a part of the policy that I'm simply unaware of? — Kaz (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as possible, hooks should be interesting to a general audience, but when you have multiple article hooks like this, the "interestingness" criterion may have to be forgotten. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Where is that, in the guidelines? As far as I know, it's the opposite of how DYK is prioritized. I've seen plenty of DYK with multiple hooks, but each hook has a separate function that is interesting, and usually one hook is primary. — Kaz (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This review should be set aside and a new reviewer found. None of the articles have been reviewed in full against the DYK criteria. The only issue looked at is the length of the hook and the reviewer was clearly unfamiliar with the concept of multiple article submissions before starting the review. I don't think the objection really holds water. Kaz's suggested hook is virtually the same (in essence) but with the multiple articles removed. If the fact passes the interesting criterion with one article, then it must pass with multiple articles given the long standing acceptance of this kind of bundling at DYK. SpinningSpark 21:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this soon. Just looking at the nomination, I think we need 5 QPQs for 5 nominated articles. I will review each article in detail. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Vivvt, thanks for taking this on. Looking at the above list, there are four reviews mentioned at the top, one of which is a double-article nomination that would cover two of the five articles here. So it would seem that five QPQs have been provided. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

That's right. All QPQs are done. I missed it. Starting review of all five now. Might take time. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Melanerpe; 5xed on 8 May, long enough, neutral and no apparent copyvios, image ok on commons, AGF on offline sources.
Yellow-fronted woodpecker; 5xed on 4 May, long enough, neutral and no apparent copyvios, image ok on commons, AGF on offline sources.
White-fronted woodpecker; 5xed on 6 May, long enough, neutral and no apparent copyvios, image ok on commons, AGF on offline sources.
Golden-naped woodpecker; 5xed on 5 May, long enough, neutral and no apparent copyvios, image ok on commons, AGF on offline sources.
Yellow-tufted woodpecker; 5xed on 6 May, long enough, neutral and no apparent copyvios, image ok on commons, AGF on offline sources.
Overall good to go, image proposed in hook is ok on commons. Length not an issue for multi-article hook. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote this, and everything checks out, but I am having trouble finding the verification for the hook fact about the bold coloring. Is it in footnote 1? Could you add an inline cite to the sentence in the Melanerpes article? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I have added an extra citation for the sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Restoring tick per Vivvt's review. Yoninah (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)