- 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: rejected by Montanabw(talk) 05:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Marine mammal
edit- ... that 23% of marine mammals are currently threatened?
5x expanded by Dunkleosteus77 (talk). Self-nominated at 23:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC).
- Reviewers: An automated review of this article has been performed by a bot at User:Intelligentsium/Marine mammal. You may find it helpful. Note that this is an experimental feature and not intended to replace a full human review. Feedback is welcome / BRFA Intelligentsium 20:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
This version of the article from 29 May 2016, prior to the expansion, is 14675 characters and the present version, from 18 June 2016, is 34567 characters. This is only a little over double the readable characters, way short of the x5 expansion required for DYK. I suggest you look at getting the article to GA and then nominating again as a new GA, because I can't see you managing to add another 40 000 characters to get to x5. EdChem (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)- Also, this Earwig search identifies that the following text:
- "are different in many ways from all other docodonts, presumably due to a difference in diet. Most docodonts had teeth specialized for an omnivorous diet. The teeth of Castorocauda suggest that the animal was a piscivore, feeding on fish and small invertebrates. The first two molars had cusps in a straight row, eliminating the grinding function suggesting that they were strictly for gripping and not for chewing. This feature of three cusps in a row is similar to the ancestral condition in mammal relatives (as seen in triconodonts), but is almost certainly a derived character in Castorocauda. These first molars were also recurved in a manner designed to hold slippery prey once grasped. These teeth are very similar to the teeth seen in mesonychids, an extinct group of semi-aquatic carnivorous ungulates, and resemble, to a lesser degree, the teeth of seals."
- is duplicated elsewhere online. I don't know whether the text has been copied from Wikipedia or not, so it may not be a problem, but looking into this would be sensible as it will likely come up if you go to GA. Intelligentsium's bot report (above) also notes a paragraph with no citation in the body of the article, FYI. EdChem (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- The earwig search doesn't say this text is plagiarized for me. What website is it talking about? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Dunkleosteus77: the issue is whether the other site has copied your text from Wikipedia (which is not a problem from a DYK perspective, thought they should attribute the text in line with the license under which all contributions are made), or whether the text is WP is a copyright violation of some other source, in which case it would need to be removed and possibly re-written. I make no claim as to which is the case, I have no idea. I don't even know if it was added in the recent expansion or not. Earwig identifies issues which might be problems which need to be examined. Usually if you run Earwig (and it can take several minutes) it will give a URL for the sites with high percentage matches, which you can copy and paste. Note, though, the site Earwig finds may itself be a copy of somewhere else. EdChem (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- The earwig didn't show this passage as a copyright violation for me, it showed a copyright violation for something about indian rhinoceroses (but those cites are copies of wikipedia). User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- The results seem to change as the version of the wiki article being compared changes. However, I think one place the text showed up was here. Doing a google search, I wonder if the text originates from another WP page and has been mirrored over the internet. EdChem (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- I got that from the Castarocauda article, and the supposed plagiarized text was already present in a 2012 revision, a year before the other cite was created. No copyvio User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 20:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- The results seem to change as the version of the wiki article being compared changes. However, I think one place the text showed up was here. Doing a google search, I wonder if the text originates from another WP page and has been mirrored over the internet. EdChem (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- The earwig didn't show this passage as a copyright violation for me, it showed a copyright violation for something about indian rhinoceroses (but those cites are copies of wikipedia). User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 16:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Dunkleosteus77: the issue is whether the other site has copied your text from Wikipedia (which is not a problem from a DYK perspective, thought they should attribute the text in line with the license under which all contributions are made), or whether the text is WP is a copyright violation of some other source, in which case it would need to be removed and possibly re-written. I make no claim as to which is the case, I have no idea. I don't even know if it was added in the recent expansion or not. Earwig identifies issues which might be problems which need to be examined. Usually if you run Earwig (and it can take several minutes) it will give a URL for the sites with high percentage matches, which you can copy and paste. Note, though, the site Earwig finds may itself be a copy of somewhere else. EdChem (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- The earwig search doesn't say this text is plagiarized for me. What website is it talking about? User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 15:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
- The uncited warning is because of a non-displaying newline character in the middle of an existing paragraph (which has now been removed) and can be disregarded.
- I do not believe it is appropriate to classify the rhinoceros and the moose as aquatic simply because they occasionally feed in water. Moreover, I believe many of the topics addressed in this article belong instead in Aquatic mammal. Note that "marine" typically refers to animals which depend on saltwater (as opposed to beavers and hippos which live in freshwater). I have placed a merge tag to initiate a discussion. Intelligentsium 12:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
