Template:Did you know nominations/Aldabra
The following is an archived discussion of Aldabra's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know
(talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.
The result was: promoted by Ashwin147 (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC).
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Aldabra[edit]
- ... the Aldabra atoll in Seychelles, called as "one of the wonders of the world” by Sir David Attenborough, has the largest concentration of about 100,000 Giant tortoises in the world?
5x expanded by Nvvchar (talk), Bonkers The Clown (talk), Rosiestep (talk), Blofeld (talk). Nominated by Nvvchar (talk) at 07:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC).
More than adequate expansion in the five days prior to nomination (it's more than 11 times larger now!). Ticks all the policy boxes, shows up on Earwig's Copyvio Detector as a copyvio of [1], but that's clearly a mirror, not a source. Hook is interesting and within the required length, but the two sources both seem to indicate that Aldabra has around 150,000 giant tortoises - the article and hook should be updated to correct that. QPQ's been done, image is PD and sharp enough to look good at 100px - I reckon this is good to go once the numbers are sorted. Yunshui 雲水 10:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- IBA assessment here[2] gives a a figure of 100,000 tortoise count in 2001, while UNESCO inscription in 1982 gives the number as 150,000. I have gone by the latest figures. QPQ done.--Nvvchar. 13:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but the IBA source isn't being used to reference the tortoise population in the article - two sources do so in the lead (UNESCO and Swingland & Klemens, both of which claim 150,000) and two in the Fauna section (Paine, which does give 100,000, and Mair & Beckley, which doesn't show previews that give tortoise population figures). You just need to tweak the sources so that the two places which claim 100,000 tortoises have appropriate references. Yunshui 雲水 13:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- It appears that someone has already made the change in the article. I hope it is ok now.--Nvvchar. 14:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I hope I've made an error because I'd love to pass this one, but the prose doesn't seem to have been expanded 5x since you started work on it. I went back to when you started and it does look pretty close though. I really hope the DYKchecker is inaccurate here as you've done a great job with this article. Hillbillyholiday talk 23:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Your count is right. I counted wrong. I have now added text which now makes it 5x.--Nvvchar. 07:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Bit confused - at the time of Nvvchar's first edit on March 24th (5 days prior to this DYK nomination) the article looked like this and had 5458B of prose. The version nominated on the 29th looked like this, and contained 23kB of prose - that's way more than a 5x expansion. Have I missed some arcane DYK rule here? Yunshui 雲水 07:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Your count is right. I counted wrong. I have now added text which now makes it 5x.--Nvvchar. 07:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- I am also confused. Any way, I have refixed the UNESCO reference after the 100,000 number at both places and also deleted the words "according to a recent count". I hope it now meets your observations. Thanks. --Nvvchar. 09:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand the comment about UNESCO / Swingland / Paine / Mair. I made a slight ref change, hoping this is what you meant. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- The issue I see with the refs is as follows: The hook gives a figure of 100,000 tortoises (as does the article, in two places). However, the references cited do not always agree with this figure. This UNESCO source, cited in the lead, claims 152,000. Swingland (also cited in the lead) claims 150,000. The 100,000 figure in the "Fauna" section was previously cited to Mair & Beckley and Payne (both of whom do give a figure of 100,000), but after the recent changes that later instance now cites UNESCO and Swingland, which means that the information in the article - and the hook - is not supported by the sources. Either cite both claims for a population of 100,000 to Mair/Beckley and Payne (or IBA), or change the figure in the article and hook to 150,000 per UNESCO and Swingland. Given the dates of the sources, I'd recommend the former. Yunshui 雲水 08:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd say it's indeed correct now. —♦♦ AMBER(ЯʘCK) 17:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
