- 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 Allen3 talk 20:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Tygerberg Zoo
edit- ... that Tygerberg Zoo sought to breed look-alikes to South Africa's Cape lions, extinct since the 1850s, with two cubs from Novosibirsk Zoo in Siberia?
Created by Doncram (talk). Moved to mainspace 31 March. Self nominated at 05:36, 31 March 2015 (UTC).
- Right now, the article is at Draft:Tygerberg Zoo, waiting to be put into mainspace by AFC volunteers or anyone else. So this is early. Happy for alternate DYK phrase suggestions. --doncram 05:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Doncram, while this is in Draft space, it isn't eligible for DYK. Please wait until this exists in article space before nominating. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
New review needed. The article was moved to main namespace. North America1000 12:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
@Doncram: New enough, long enough, spotchecks revealed no close paraphrasing or copyvio. My only concern is the dead URL on source 7 - since it's only cited once and cited along with 2 other sources, is it expendable? Otherwise looks good to go. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, expendable, and expended. It was a carry-over from some coverage of the lions at the Novosibirsk article; I believed from context that it did support info given before the footnote, and I guess I sort of wanted to give it credit. But I did not obtain, read, or rely upon it, and the info is fully supported by English-language, available references also there. So it's gone now. Thanks, --doncram 04:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. Sorry it took so long to get back to you! It's GTG. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, expendable, and expended. It was a carry-over from some coverage of the lions at the Novosibirsk article; I believed from context that it did support info given before the footnote, and I guess I sort of wanted to give it credit. But I did not obtain, read, or rely upon it, and the info is fully supported by English-language, available references also there. So it's gone now. Thanks, --doncram 04:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
