Template:Did you know nominations/Epinecrophylla


 * 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 10:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Epinecrophylla, Rufous-tailed antwren, Stipple-throated antwren, Ornate antwren

 * ... that the stipple-throated, the ornate and the rufous-tailed antwren (pictured) are all in the genus Epinecrophylla and specialise in extracting insect prey from dead leaves?


 * Reviewed: WIPA Awards
 * Comment: Also reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Cai Gao, Template:Did you know nominations/María Ávila Serna and Template:Did you know nominations/Louis Victor Plessier

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 19:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC).

Automatically reviewed by DYKReviewBot. This is not a substitute for a human review. Please report any issues with the bot. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 19:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Review of Stipple-throated antwren
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No issues found with article, ready for human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 19:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * &#x2713; This article has been expanded from 300 chars to 2084 chars since 03:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC), a 6.95-fold expansion
 * &#x2713; This article meets the DYK criteria at 2084 characters
 * &#x2713; All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
 * &#x2713; This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
 * &#x2713; A copyright violation is unlikely according to automated metrics (16.7% confidence; confirm)
 * Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
 * Review of Ornate antwren
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No issues found with article, ready for human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 19:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * &#x2713; This article has been expanded from 311 chars to 1883 chars since 03:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC), a 6.05-fold expansion
 * &#x2713; This article meets the DYK criteria at 1883 characters
 * &#x2713; All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
 * &#x2713; This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
 * &#x2713; A copyright violation is unlikely according to automated metrics (0.0% confidence; confirm)
 * Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
 * Review of Rufous-tailed antwren
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No issues found with article, ready for human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 19:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * &#x2713; This article has been expanded from 276 chars to 2102 chars since 03:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC), a 7.62-fold expansion
 * &#x2713; This article meets the DYK criteria at 2102 characters
 * &#x2713; All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
 * &#x2713; This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
 * ? A copyright violation is suspected by an automated tool, with 23.1% confidence. (confirm)
 * Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
 * Review of Epinecrophylla
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg No issues found with article, ready for human review. --DYKReviewBot (report bugs) 19:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * &#x2713; This article has been expanded from 200 chars to 1576 chars since 01:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC), a 7.88-fold expansion
 * &#x2713; This article meets the DYK criteria at 1576 characters
 * &#x2713; All paragraphs in this article have at least one citation
 * &#x2713; This article has no outstanding maintenance tags
 * &#x2713; A copyright violation is unlikely according to automated metrics (7.4% confidence; confirm)
 * Note to reviewers: There is low confidence in this automated metric, please manually verify that there is no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. Note that this number may be inflated due to cited quotes and titles which do not constitute a copyright violation.
 * General comments
 * Symbol question.svg Some overall issues detected
 * &#x2713; The media File:MyrmotherulaErythruraSmit.jpg is free-use
 * &#x2713; The hook ALT0 is an appropriate length for 4 nominations at 159 characters (86 after subtracting extra links)
 * &#x2717; Cwmhiraeth has more than 5 DYK credits. 4 QPQ reviews are required for this nomination.
 * &#x2717; Template:Did you know nominations/María Ávila Serna appears to have been used as QPQ for Template:Did you know nominations/Bailey's pocket mouse, Template:Did you know nominations/Epinecrophylla
 * &#x2717; Template:Did you know nominations/Cai Gao appears to have been used as QPQ for Template:Did you know nominations/Epinecrophylla, Template:Did you know nominations/Desert dormouse
 * I'm not sure if the bot got this right or not, but in case I have inadvertently reused reviews for QPQs, here are two more I have done; Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Cunningham (photographer) and Template:Did you know nominations/Pringles Unsung Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Articles are all expanded sufficiently within the requisite timeframe. There are no copyvio issues that I can find: the tool is flagging some common phrases that are virtually unavoidable in wildlife stubs. Articles all cited inline. QPQ complete. Image is free use. Various hook facts are in their appropriate articles, are cited inline there, and are supported by the cited sources. I personally prefer the serial comma, but can hardly fault you for that. Hook uses British spelling; no obvious reason not to do this, so I have no quarrel with it. GTG. Vanamonde (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)