Template:Did you know nominations/Biodiversity of Wales

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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Biodiversity of Wales

(

)

... that the biodiversity of Wales has unique species which can only be found in a certain region in Wales and nowhere else in the world?

Comment: Created in my userspace on 24 September 2012 and moved to article space on 28 September 2012

Created/expanded by RexRowan (talk). Self nom at 10:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Article has numerous citation needed tags, and the hook is over 200 characters. Sasata (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The hook has been trimmed. The article is well referenced. The citation needed tags are added by good faith editing that has no real need, thanks. --RexRowan^忍(Ninja signal) 12:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Reexamined article, still needing citations. RexRowan please note Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines supplementary rule D2 is all paragraphs (no matter the length) should in general have citations. Currently the "Evolution" and "Human Impact/woodlands" are both basically unsourced. Also note D6 which states articles with dispute tags (such as citation needed templates) are likely to be rejected.--Kev min § 02:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, added the tags, does it look ok now? --RexRowan Talk 10:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Much of the language and paragraph structure of "Evolution" is far too close to that of the single source used in that section. Please see WP:Close paraphrasing; still needs quite a bit of work to distance the prose from the source. A greater variety of sources would help too. Sasata (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Sadly no changes have been made to the noted possible copyvio in the evolution section.--Kev min § 22:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to leave it like that, I have tried my best to reorder the content but due its highly scientific nature, I do not want to shorten it or reword it to a higher degree in case I misrepresent the data. An expert from the field is welcomed to have a try. Many thanks! --RexRowan Talk 09:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC)