Template:Did you know nominations/Grey-headed woodpecker
- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Grey-headed woodpecker
[edit]
Grey-headed woodpecker
- ... that the grey-headed woodpecker was split into three separate species in 2014? Source: "Hitherto considered conspecific with P. guerini and P. dedemi, but differs from former in [...]" [1] "Picus canus, P. guerini and P. dedemi (del Hoyo and Collar 2014) were previously lumped as P. canus following Sibley and Monroe (1990, 1993)." [2] and original print-published source named therein
ALT1:... that the grey-headed woodpecker will breed within 100 meters of its sister species, the European green woodpecker?Source: Gorman, Gerard (2004): Woodpeckers of Europe: A Study of the European Picidae. Bruce Coleman, UK. ISBN 1-872842-05-4, pp. 61-62.
Translated by Samsara (talk). Self-nominated at 14:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC).
- @Samsara: Comment. At the moment this article does not qualify for DYK because of the DYK requirement to have at least one citation per paragraph. I see the article has been translated from the German and that the German language article is also deficient in inline citations. Now I have a copy of Woodpeckers of the World by Gerard Gorman and could add some citations, but the article is more detailed than my book, so I could not cite everything. Would you like me to add what I can? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: Sure, that would be good. Unfortunately, the Germans have set a different standard for citation. Their version is the equivalent of a Featured Article (they call it "Exzellent"). I guess this also means I should stop translating until the DYK process has run its course. Thanks, Samsara 12:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have added some citations, but have not got anything much on "Sounds", not enough to cover the whole of both paragraphs anyway. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: Thanks. I just checked, and it's still eligible after removing those sections. Samsara 17:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- It should be OK now, apart from the last sentence in the Distribution section. The IUCN does not mention how common it is as far as I can see. You will need someone else to review the nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Done Offending two sentences removed. Samsara 18:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- It should be OK now, apart from the last sentence in the Distribution section. The IUCN does not mention how common it is as far as I can see. You will need someone else to review the nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: Thanks. I just checked, and it's still eligible after removing those sections. Samsara 17:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
- I have added some citations, but have not got anything much on "Sounds", not enough to cover the whole of both paragraphs anyway. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
New enough, 5x expanded, citation issues resolved. Approving ALT0 as it seems more interesting than ALT1. Typology section is a bit sparse, but that's simply room for improvement. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
