Template:Did you know nominations/Elegant quail
- 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 Montanabw(talk) 23:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Elegant quail
[edit]- ... that elegant quails make "chip-chip" calls to keep in touch as they forage on the ground?
- Reviewed: Church of the Jacobins
5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 11:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC).
No issues found with article, ready for human review.
- ✓ This article has been expanded from 168 chars to 1915 chars since 05:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC), a 11.40-fold expansion
- ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 1915 characters
- ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
- ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
- ✓ A copyright violation is unlikely (2.0% confidence; confirm)
- Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
- No overall issues detected
- ✓ The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length at 85 characters
- ✓ Cwmhiraeth has more than 5 DYK credits. A QPQ review of Template:Did you know nominations/Church of the Jacobins was performed for this nomination.
Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This bot is experimental; please report any issues. This is not a substitute for a human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 23:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Agree with bot, interesting calling bird, good sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, as the bot is not capable of doing certain checks, the subsequent human review needs to cover somewhat more than that. While you did check the quality of the sources, the hook facts need to be in the article and sourced no later than the end of the sentence in which they appear; neutrality is not covered by the bot, and as the bot itself says, "please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing", the latter being something the bot again cannot do. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
- Whenever I find lack of neutrality or copyvio I say so. In this standard article by an editor who knows the rules, I didn't mention it again. But: neutral, no apparent copyright violation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)