Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Bratton Downs

< Template:Did you know nominations
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) 06:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Bratton Downs

edit
(
)

5x expanded by Casliber (talk). Self-nominated at 15:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC).

 • No issues found with article, ready for human review.

    • ✓ This article has been expanded from 129 chars to 1617 chars since 19:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC), a 12.53-fold expansion
    • ✓ This article meets the DYK criteria at 1617 characters
    • ✓ All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
    • ✓ This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
    • ✓ A copyright violation is unlikely according to automated metrics (4.8% 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

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 03:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

  • A little over the minimum length; 5x expansion from microstub confirmed by DYKcheck. Hook is concise, hooky in an Easter-egg-ish fashion and also interesting, appears in article, and is supported by a reliable reference. Article is neutral and appears free from copyright/close paraphrasing problems. I do have some concerns... It could do with broadening out to cover the topic fully, eg "notable geological features" are not further elucidated. The biological features could also be expanded; eg no mention is made of the ancient broad-leaved woodland. First paragraph needs citing to the SSSI description. More info linked here: [1] including some mapping which shows what geographical features are included. There are only 2 refs and nearly all of the article pends off just one of them, though it's reliable. Not a DYK issue, but the image in the article has no caption and very limited encyclopedic value. There are more free images at Geograph including a few showing grassland which might be within/near the correct area, eg [2],[3]. QPQ completed. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Espresso Addict:, the geological stuff is highly technical and I can't get my head around some of it, so just clarified a bit. Agree about the photo and a need for a better one. One of the vistas of the White Horse plus surrounds would be better I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I've added a little more on location & ancient woodland (quite a big deal in the UK). On closer inspection of the map the white horse appears to fall within the SSSI area so a photo of that would be appropriate. There might now be room for another, if anything on Geograph falls within the area; I'll take a quick look. Agree about the geological info -- I wish I knew what escarpment fluates are (a typo? fluoride-rich slopes?). Anyway, I think this is now good to go, as the image is not a DYK requirement. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Quite the opposite, I think, since (unless you're a bird watcher) fritillaries sounds naughty. But you're welcome to strike this one if you like ALT0 better. EEng 19:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm obviously unsalvageably literal, as it doesn't sound naughty to me? If it is decided to go with this alternative, then some means of linking to the butterfly fritillary, as opposed to the bulb, needs to be found but there doesn't seem to be a single page. Paging @Casliber: for an opinion. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Analogy: ALT1 at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Henry_Michell_Wagner. EEng 21:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
It does sound funny. Big question is it factual...and we are undermined by a sole preposition. We could have an "and" but not a "with" as it starts to veer away from factual (sadly). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Y'all are welcome to use my idea any way you want. Just don't shoot yourself in the twitten. EEng 01:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
You should check where your wikilinks end up! And surely it should be "on" Bratton Downs. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Fixed in to on. What's wrong with the links? And stop calling me Shirley. EEng 07:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
As I wrote above, one problem with using the fritillaries in the hook is that there doesn't seem to be an article on fritillary the butterfly (as opposed to the bulb). Agree with Cwmhiraeth that "on" is preferable, in both this and the original hook. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
The best link I can find is Argynnini or Nymphalidae, but neither is perfect, and according to its article, the Duke of Burgundy is also a fritillary, albeit not a true one! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:31, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Bratton_Downs&oldid=1254718913"