Template:Did you know nominations/Mangrove Robin

Mangrove Robin

 * ... that the Mangrove Robin (pictured) consumes a significant amount of crab in its diet, in addition to its primary prey of insects?
 * Reviewed: Second review of Template:Did you know nominations/Reviving Baseball in Inner Cities
 * Comment: Featured picture – will make a nice lead hook.

5x expanded by Bloom6132 (talk). Self nominated at 01:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Good to go Cambalachero (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg "Good to go" is not an adequate review, and certainly won't qualify as a QPQ. Please describe what was checked: size, age, neutrality, hook facts, hook sourcing, article sourcing, close paraphrasing, QPQ review, etc. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If you don't like the review, feel free to make your own review, instead of complaining over nothing. But to make things easier, here it goes:

Article

New – within the past five days, the article has been created (sandbox → mainspace is eligible); or       had its prose portion expanded at least fivefold;  or        had its prose portion expanded at least twofold (only applies to BLPs that were completely unreferenced before expansion) been promoted to good article status Long enough – the prose portion is at least 1,500 characters Within policy – meets core policies and guidelines, and in particular: is neutral cites sources with inline citations is free of close paraphrasing issues, copyright violations and plagiarism

Hook

Format – fewer than 200 characters (shorter is better) and meets the formatting guidelines Content interesting hook fact is accurate and cited with an inline citation in the article neutral and does not focus unduly on negative aspects of living people

Other

QPQ – nominators who have five or more DYK credits and are nominating their own articles must review another article. Image must be free (no fair use) be used in the article show up well at small size (100 × 100px)


 * Cambalachero, thanks for the more fully explained review. You don't need to write it out like this; as T:TDYK explains, reviews should begin with one of the 5 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed. The problem for those of us looking to promote a hook to a prep area is that we don't know (and can't keep track) of who is a new reviewer and who is knowledgeable, and whether they've remembered to check everything or might have forgotten the close paraphrasing or neutrality checks this time. If you wish QPQ credit for your reviews, just follow these guidelines and you'll be all set.


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Reiterating Cambalachero's tick for clarity. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Comment - Source for hook checks out. Article long enough and 5x expanded. QPQ done. Article is properly sourced. No close paraphrasing nor copyvio. One grammatical issue with the hook, there is an inconsistency: starts off with "its" and then moves to "their". EagerToddler39 (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can someone please restore the green tick now that this minor and trivial concern has been addressed? —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Done. Hook has been fixed. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)