Template:Did you know nominations/Frigid bumblebee
- 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 PFHLai (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Frigid bumblebee
edit- ... that the frigid bumblebee is one of only two species of bumblebee to have natural born cues to prevent inbreeding?
5x expanded by Floyd Burney (talk). Self-nominated at 00:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC).
Please list review details, as a courtesy to the nominator, especially if meant to be used as a QPQ. Please don't leave room for this being pulled from promotion because of inadequate review.— Maile (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Everything checks out - good to go! LavaBaron (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Review by Maile
-
- QPQ check shows nominator with no previous DYKs, so no QPQ required
- Eligibility
- Article created by Ternarius on February 3, 2013 and was 1071 characters (0 words) "readable prose size" on September 20, 2015
- Expansion brought article to 12285 characters (0 words) "readable prose size" on September 26, 2015
- Nominated as 5X expansion on October 3, 2015
- Article is NPOV, currently stable, no edit wars, no dispute tags
- Hook, Sourcing and copyvio check
- Every paragraph sourced
- No bare URLs, and no external links used as inline sources
There appears to be close paraphrasing that needs to be reworded.
- Source
many of the spring and fall flowering plants rely on native Bombus species for their pollination
- Article
many of the spring and fall flowering plants rely on the Bombus species to pollinate.
- Hook is fine at 113 characters, NPOV, sourced and stated in the article.
- Image
- No image in either the hook.
@BlueMoonset: and @Floyd Burney: This nomination has a copyvio/close paraphrasing issue noted above. Everything else is fine, so when the copyvio/close paraphrasing is corrected, we can pass the review. BlueMoonset, can you please pull this from Prep? — Maile (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- I pulled it from prep. — Maile (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is obviously a case of WP:LIMITED. This is a 15-word sentence on a scientific topic. One-third of the words (Bombus, species, flowering, plants, spring) have no substitute that would be easily understood by a lay person (or in the case of Bombus, any substitute at all). The other words (of, the, and, on, to) are common. The shortness of sentence and specialization of topic makes a rewording difficult if not impossible. This appears to be a disruptively WP:POINTy re-review. LavaBaron (talk) 07:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hey LavaBaron, BlueMoonset asked me to evaluate whether there was a legitimate close-paraphrasing concern here, but I'm having some trouble with that because of a mismatch between content and sources. For example, a large section of "Colony cycle" is cited to footnote 3, but I don't see this content there, at least not on the cited pages. Is there another source or page range meant to support this section? Can you check that the other cited sources are appropriately placed? EDIT: Oops, misread this and thought that LavaBaron was the author - pinging Floyd Burney to look at this issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Nikkimaria. That question might be better directed to the author of the article. LavaBaron (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not exactly a confidence booster, but okay ... LavaBaron (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing the sourcing problem to my attention. I inadvertently left out three pages from the reference. The problem has been fixed, and the other sources should be fine. On rewording the sentence, I'm not exactly sure how to. I realize that the sentence is very close to the original, so should I change it to be exactly like the original with quotation marks? Floyd Burney (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- If I might butt in, Floyd Burney, yes, as a general rule changing close paraphrasing to a properly-attributed direct quotation is one acceptable way of dealing with it when you can't see a good way to rewrite the passage in question. (So long as you aren't close to going under the minimum length requirement of 1500 characters or 5x expansion, when it's for DYK review, since direct quotations don't count toward those requirements.) Another option is just to eliminate the clause or sentence entirely, if it isn't necessary to the article. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 04:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Sticking my nose in here, there was no great difficulty in rephrasing the sentence in question and I have BOLDLY done so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- If I might butt in, Floyd Burney, yes, as a general rule changing close paraphrasing to a properly-attributed direct quotation is one acceptable way of dealing with it when you can't see a good way to rewrite the passage in question. (So long as you aren't close to going under the minimum length requirement of 1500 characters or 5x expansion, when it's for DYK review, since direct quotations don't count toward those requirements.) Another option is just to eliminate the clause or sentence entirely, if it isn't necessary to the article. —GrammarFascist contribstalk 04:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for bringing the sourcing problem to my attention. I inadvertently left out three pages from the reference. The problem has been fixed, and the other sources should be fine. On rewording the sentence, I'm not exactly sure how to. I realize that the sentence is very close to the original, so should I change it to be exactly like the original with quotation marks? Floyd Burney (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hey LavaBaron, BlueMoonset asked me to evaluate whether there was a legitimate close-paraphrasing concern here, but I'm having some trouble with that because of a mismatch between content and sources. For example, a large section of "Colony cycle" is cited to footnote 3, but I don't see this content there, at least not on the cited pages. Is there another source or page range meant to support this section? Can you check that the other cited sources are appropriately placed? EDIT: Oops, misread this and thought that LavaBaron was the author - pinging Floyd Burney to look at this issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, @Nikkimaria: never came back. I will give this the green tick based on Earwig's tool now saying "Violation Unlikely". — Maile (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)