Template:Did you know nominations/Robust tuco-tuco


 * 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 Allen3 talk 13:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Robust tuco-tuco

 * ... that the robust tuco-tuco is threatened by loss of its habitat to agricultural development?


 * Reviewed: Alejandro Sosa

5x expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 19:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg Article has been reviewed against each of the seven DYK criteria and found to have met seven of seven DYK criteria. Review began at 0435 on 12OCT2015 and concluded at 0442 on same date. LavaBaron (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Please list review details, as a courtesy to the nominator, especially if meant to be used as a QPQ.  Please don't leave room for this being pulled from promotion because of inadequate review.— Maile  (talk) 20:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg For those who are unclear what the "DYK criteria" consist of (the nominator, or others), I have wikilinked to them as a courtesy. I hope other editors do not choose to needlessly hold-up this excellent nom as a perfunctory, and disruptive, bookkeeping exercise. LavaBaron (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

New reviewer needed to provide details of what is checked in the review. DYK review instructions please begin with one of the 6 review symbols that appear at the top of the edit screen, and then indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed. Details that are supposed to be checked in a review can be found at  DYKReviewing guide — Maile  (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg As per administrator ruling here, it's been determined no further review is needed. This is cleared for queue. LavaBaron (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg There was no such administrator ruling or determination; reinstating Maile's request for a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg A discussion in DYK Talk has failed consensus that the review is unacceptable; I don't want to engage in vote-counting but, to make things concise, I'll note 4 editors have proferred the belief it is acceptable, 4 have objected, and 2 have unclear opinions. For lack of a consensus to overturn the review, it is clear for queue. LavaBaron (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Could you please have a look at the link for your first source, IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. I see the retrieval date on that was 2009. Perhaps the URL was moved. I've tried it with two different browsers and both give a bold red message: "We're sorry, but something went wrong." That particular source is the one for the hook. — Maile (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Noms don't do self-reviews so there's no reason for C to take a look at it. I've confirmed the link. If you're having computer difficulties, you can try to check the Web archive version here -. Cleared for queue. LavaBaron (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the fault is with the IUCN website not my link to it. The IUCN website seems to be having problems as it went off "the air" a few days ago, came back on again about 24 hours later and has now failed again. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. It's always unfortunate when someone holds-up a nom because it's easier to slap an icon on it rather than AGF or spend 60 seconds investigating. Sorry this excellent nom was delayed, but thank your for taking it in stride. LavaBaron (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Review by Maile
 * IUCN website link is back up. Let's give this a real review, so the promoter can move it up without questions.
 * QPQ by Cwmhiraeth on October 11, 2015
 * Eligibility
 * Article created by Polbot on July 30, 2007, and prior to expansion was a stub with 117 characters (0 words) "readable prose size"
 * Expansion began by Cwmhiraeth on October 10, 2015, and is currently 1622 characters (0 words) "readable prose size"
 * Sourcing
 * Every paragraph sourced inline, one offline source and two online sources
 * No bare URLs, and no external links used as inline source
 * Hook
 * Hook is 90 characters, NPOV, stated in the article and sourced where stated
 * Image
 * No image on the nomination or in the article
 * Tools
 * Duplication Detector run on the two online sources shows no copyvio/close paraphrasing issues of concern.

This one is Good 2 Go. — Maile (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)