Wikipedia

Template:Did you know nominations/Furcifer angeli, Furcifer balteatus

< Template:Did you know nominations
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 BlueMoonset (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Furcifer angeli, Furcifer balteatus

edit
( Back to T:TDYK )
( Article history links:
)

Created/expanded by Thine Antique Pen (talk). Self nom at 12:00, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The hook is not interesting or surprising; lots of animals are endemic to the country in which they are found. Can a better hook be found? Sasata (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The two articles are different. I have two hooks, each one for each article:
For Angel's Chameleon: ... that the Angel's Chameleon is a "drably coloured" version of the Panther Chameleon?
For Rainforest Chameleon: ... that the green-coloured Rainforest Chameleon is endangered?
Hope it helps. — ΛΧΣ21™ 06:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


  • The proposed Rainforest Chameleon hook is not adequately supported by the source. Indeed, the first two sentences of the Description section are dubious not only because they start "In some species", which seems to contradict the article being about a single species called Furcifer balteatus. Worse, the sources are pictures without description, making these descriptions creations of the author here, who can have no idea whether these are representative pictures (that is, typical of how the chameleon, which may well change color a lot, looks), and these sites warn that the photographer's identification hasn't actually been confirmed by experts. So we have no secondary reliable source for "green". For the Angel's Chameleon, this description was from an arbitrary photographer rather than from the official description/identification of the species based on a nighttime photograph (rather than its appearance during the day), so I have to wonder how accurate it is. I'm not sure, though, that a "according to amateur photographer John Sullivan, Angel's Chameleon is a "drably coloured" version of the Panther Chameleon?" hook would fly. If there isn't going to be an effort to come up with interesting, accurate hooks—together or apart—for these articles, then we should probably let them go. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Bluemoonset makes good points here. I have found a licensed image and done some expansion of Furcifer balteatus. It is difficult to find a suitable interesting single hook for these two chameleon species so I suggest the nomination is split. The hook for Furcifer balteatus could be:
  • The hook checks out, and the article meets other criteria, but I'm concerned about some of the non-hook facts. In this case, it is mentioned that the chameleon is active during the day, but there's nothing at all to that effect in either of the two references which support that statement. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I removed the fact about the chameleon being diurnal because I could not find it mentioned in any of the referenced articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
For the Furcifer angeli article the hook could be:
  • ALT2 ... that despite the destruction of its forest habitat, the Angel's Chameleon has adapted to life in the vicinity of humans?
or
  • ALT3 ... that despite the destruction of its forest habitat, the Angel's Chameleon has adapted to life near roads and villages? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The hooks check out, and the article meets other criteria, but I'm concerned about some of the non-hook facts. In this case, the article mentions the range of the chameleon, but there is inconsistency between the statement of range in the article and the statement of range in the reference. Furthermore, the range seems possibly unreliable, deriving from a personal communication. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia of Life is only quoting the IUCN site which also mentions a personal communication. I have reworded the sentence concerned and it is also now more accurate as to the precise locations being referred to. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Reviewer(s) needed for these as individual articles. Please make sure each is individually graded with its own icon. Striking all hooks but the three ALTs for clarity. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Placing a tick here, since the articles were reviewed above the "new reviewer" icon just above this line: note that this nomination is now two separate hooks, one for each of the articles, and each one needs to be promoted separately. The promoter should not close this until both articles have been promoted, and they should not be promoted at the same time.
I struck ALT2, as it was not mentioned as having been approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Furcifer_angeli,_Furcifer_balteatus&oldid=1021730193"