- 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: promoted by Allen3 talk 10:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ashy-faced Owl
edit- ... that the diet of the Ashy-faced Owl includes more than 100 species of mammals (including bats), birds, amphibians and reptiles?
- Reviewed: Christian Workers Union of Sweden (1899)
Created/expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 12:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC).
The hook is no where to be found in the article. There is no sentence in the article that provides similar wording used in the hook. "Both caught a similar proportion of bats but the Ashy-faced Owl caught more birds." is the closest thing to the hook but it doesn't necessarily say that it has to do with the diet. I found the hook odd too. Which is (including bats) in parenthesis? Please have the hook provided in the article with a RS citation. Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe the hook has to use a phrase actually present in the article. If the hook is to mention bats it needs to distinguish them from ground-based mammals. I could repeat the reference (#3) after each sentence in the latter part of the paragraph, but that seems excessive. Owls catch small creatures in order to eat them and this means that they form part of the bird's diet. How about these alternative hooks - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
- ALT1 ... that the diet of the Ashy-faced Owl includes small terrestrial mammals, bats, birds, amphibians and reptiles?
- ALT2 ... that the Ashy-faced Owl preys on more than 100 species of vertebrate including terrestrial mammals, amphibians, reptiles, birds and bats?
Okay, I'm glad you provided ALT's. I'm going with ALT1...I think it's more straight to the point and more in line with the content of the article. The source is offline so its a good faith on my behalf. The article is long enough, expanded enough. Good to go! :) Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
