Template:Did you know nominations/Gobi big brown bat
- 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 Mifter (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Gobi big brown bat
[edit]- ... that the Gobi big brown bat is thought to include butterflies in its diet? Source: "It is thought that some eat butterflies, "
- Reviewed: Swatow ware
5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 11:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC).
Expanded from 146 to about 2050 bytes, and nominated five days after expansion was undertaken, satisfying length and date criteria. QPQ completed. The description section states "...fur on the underparts is whitish-brown...", whereas the source states brownish-white; if one of these colours is dominant, then the text states the inverse of the source. The source also states the inner incisor is lower, not longer; is this the same thing in this case? Source 2 states range as far west as Alborz in Iran, whereas the article states the range as far west as Afghanistan and Pakistan. The adjective "arid" is superfluous in "arid desert". Text is otherwise OK, with no copyvios, though I would suggest not so closely following the same order as the sources, and not using so many similar terms. Overall, a few minor issues to address. Mindmatrix 19:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)- I forgot to note that the hook is OK and sourced. Mindmatrix 19:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Mindmatrix: Thank you for the review, I have made the alterations you suggest. Your statement "I would suggest not so closely following the same order as the sources, and not using so many similar terms" seems to contradict your previous remarks. Apparently when I change the wording (whitish-brown to brownish-white) I am departing from the source, while if I keep it the same I am too close to the source. Sometimes the source is unclear or ambiguous (as in the case of the incisors), and that makes things very difficult. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: My concern about "whitish-brown" vis-a-vis "brownish-white" was one of facts, as the two describe different colouration (predominantly white or predominantly brown). My concern about the ordering was simply that some of the article followed the same sequencing of information as the sources; note that it's not a big deal in this case, which I didn't make particularly clear before.
Regarding your changes, everything looks OK. The hook is short enough, and cited, though I note the source says "some", but I think in this case it's OK to omit from the hook as the hook is already generalized enough. Mindmatrix 00:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Mindmatrix: Thank you for the review, I have made the alterations you suggest. Your statement "I would suggest not so closely following the same order as the sources, and not using so many similar terms" seems to contradict your previous remarks. Apparently when I change the wording (whitish-brown to brownish-white) I am departing from the source, while if I keep it the same I am too close to the source. Sometimes the source is unclear or ambiguous (as in the case of the incisors), and that makes things very difficult. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
