Template:Did you know nominations/Eurasian eagle-owl


 * 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator

Eurasian eagle-owl

 * ... that when the Eurasian eagle-owl (pictured) feeds on hedgehogs it first removes their prickly skins?
 * Reviewed: Not a self-nomination

Improved to Good Article status by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 20:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol voting keep.svg Article is newly taken to GA, and is fully cited to decent sources. Hook is interesting and directly cited. Good to go. Miyagawa (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg The hook is not supported by the cited source. The sentence is cited to pages 122–126 of Owls of the World, which do not discuss prey at all. There is a mention of eating hedgehogs much later (page 325), but no mention of skinning them. Additionally, the article closely paraphrases from this source, apparently without proper attribution. There is also some less significant close paraphrasing of copyrighted sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It appears that I have only partly access to the cited book reference (via Google Books), so I assumed good faith about the source when nominating. A bit research finds that the hook fact was added to the article in July 2012 (two different edits by same editor, cited to same book but without page range then; the page range has been added later, but I have not tracked down when that was done). It should be possible to find an alternative hook which is properly cited.
 * However, it is more urgent to first deal with the close paraphrasing issues, by removing or rephrasing the matches. Thank you for finding these! Oceanh (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe "urgent" is not the right word; the non-attributed close paraphrasing was introduced to the article in March 2011, and has thus survived more than 3 1/2 years of subsequent edits and reviews. Oceanh (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The reference to skinning them is on page 335 (I had to check it when rewording the hook, so I remembered it was there; it's not like I remembered because I'm an owl or anything; [coughs up mouse] Ho Ho, So Witty; Too Witty Too). Belle (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have only recently become aware of this nomination and the problems with the article. I have now completely rewritten the description of the bird. I remember that when working on the article I found problems with the breeding section. Are there any other sections which require attention? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Cwmhiraeth for the effort of rewriting the description section. Thanks to Belle for peeling the hedgehog, you are now my favourite owl! I have extended the page range of the König book reference. The hook is supported on pages 325 and 335. Oceanh (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The edits have definitely improved the article, but I still have concerns on spotchecks. In terms of verifiability, for example, the last sentence of the article says the birds disappeared from Britain in the medieval period, but the source places that event thousands of years earlier. In terms of paraphrasing, the last part of the Breeding section remains quite close to the cited source. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The problems you mention predate my involvement with the article. I have now rewritten the second paragraph of the Breeding section and the last paragraph of the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Still having problems with both paraphrasing and verifiability - would it be possible for you to take a look at everything predating your involvement, to ensure you are satisfied with it? Also, take care that your rewriting does not introduce further issues - for example, the rephrased Breeding section now says that the chicks' eyes open after two days; that isn't stated by the source given, and Owls of the World says day 4. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I say unenthusiastically. There are so many more worthwhile things I would rather do instead, like working on the new article Rhagamys orthodon I had planned to write tonight. I haven't got access to all the sources but I'll see what I can do, and meanwhile the chicks are no longer opening their eyes in two days! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I have looked for other copyright violations but do not have access to all the sources so cannot be sure that there are none. I suggest we abandon this DYK nomination. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)