Template:Did you know nominations/Ecuadorian cacique


 * 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  MPJ  -DK 23:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Ecuadorian cacique, Selva cacique

 * ... that the Ecuadorian cacique (pictured), the solitary cacique and the Selva cacique can be distinguished by their rumps?
 * ALT1 ... that the plumage of the Ecuadorian cacique (pictured), the solitary cacique and the Selva cacique is entirely black, apart from the rump of one species?


 * Reviewed: IWRG Guerra Revolucionaria (four articles)
 * Comment: The articles do not actually state the hook fact as such, but each bird has entirely black plumage except for one, which has a yellow rump. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 09:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC).


 * Adding ALT1 and striking ALT0. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg All three articles have been expanded sufficiently to qualify and are within policy. Can the nominator confirm that they wish all three to be in bold in the hook? The image is public domain. The hook is short enough, but I find it confusing. Are the three articles about different species, and if so, which one has the yellow rump? It is unclear from the hook. Furthermore, the fact that "the articles do not actually state the hook fact as such" is a problem. Perhaps an alternative hook can be found? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a three article hook and each article is about a different species and is bolded in the hook. A hook is designed to encourage a reader to look at the article(s). This hook does not explain which bird has a yellow rump, the reader will have to click through if they want to find out. I think that is within DYK policy. Does ALT2 address your concerns? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * ALT2 ... that the Ecuadorian cacique (pictured), the solitary cacique and the Selva cacique each has entirely black plumage apart from the rump of one species?


 * I think there's a risk that the hook suggests that only one species of cacique has a yellow rump, but that's not the case (see yellow-rumped cacique), whereas obviously what you mean is that only one of the three amongst the articles you've expanded does. I'm not convinced that makes for a good hook. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you suggest a better hook? I think both ALT1 and ALT2 are OK so perhaps we need a third opinion on this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * ALT3 ... that both the Ecuadorian cacique (pictured) and the solitary cacique have entirely black plumage, whereas the Selva cacique has a yellow rump?
 * How about that? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Cwmhiraeth, is ALT3 okay with you? If so, you or I could call for a new reviewer to get this moving again. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I'm happy with ALT3. New reviewer needed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg I can confirm Cordless Larry's review. In addition, the multiple hook facts of ALT3 are included in their respective articles, are cited inline, and are supported by the sources cited. The picture is free use, and a QPQ is complete. This should be GTG with ALT3 (I've struck the others to avoid confusion). Vanamonde (talk) 07:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)