Login
Login

Template:Did you know nominations/Yunnan hare

Category:Passed DYK nominations from September 2017

: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) 09:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

{{DYK conditions}}

==Yunnan hare==

{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Yunnan hare|Yunnan hare}}

{{main page image|image=Lepus comus - Google Search - Kunming Natural History Museum of Zoology - DSC02457.JPG|caption=Yunnan hare in the Kunming Natural History Museum of Zoology, China|width=120x133}}

  • ... that although the Yunnan hare (pictured) is a diurnal species, it is also active during the night to forage? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
  • ALT1:... that the Yunnan hare (pictured) was formerly considered a subspecies of the woolly hare, but is now treated as a separate species? Source: "L. comus is diurnal, but ventures into cultivated fields at night to forage (Luo 1988)." {{IUCN2008 | assessor = Smith, A.T. | assessor2 = Johnston, C.H. | year=2008 | id=41278 | title=Lepus comus | downloaded=April 15, 2009}}

:* Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kirti Kumari

5x expanded by 7&6=thirteen and Adityavagarwal (talk). Self-nominated at 15:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC).

:* Review 16px [https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=+Yunnan+hare&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Earwig] is clear. 5X expansion is confirmed. Timely nominated. Hooks are neutral, and supported by in line sources. All paragraphs have citations. But I consider them to be somewhat wonky and boring. Can't we do better? I also think that there is a good picture that should be included in the hook. QPQ confirmed. Good article. Nice job! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

:: 16px ALT1 as modified is GTG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

:::Thanks a ton! {{p|:D}} Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  • 16px Since 7&6=thirteen is now a co-creator, it requires another review. Adityavagarwal (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • 16px Article is submitted in time, long enough expansion from ~ 200 characters to over 5,000 characters. Reliably sourced, however hook is not referenced directly or verified. In the Taxonomy section second paragraph, this sentence needs to have an inline reference since it supports the hook: but is now treated as a separate species. In the nomination it should have a GoogleBook link to show this that can be verified, or the exact wording in the book that verifies this. Other than that no copyvio detected. QPQ done. Picture is good.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

:*[https://books.google.co.in/books?id=JgAMbNSt8ikC&pg=PA198&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false Seperate species] link and [https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Q994k86i0zYC&pg=PA75&dq] link.. Was already following the very next sentence. Thanks for the re-review. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

::*16px Good To Go. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)