Template:Did you know nominations/Buffy hummingbird
- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Buffy hummingbird[edit]
... that the buffy hummingbird (pictured) eats cactuses?
- Reviewed: Andrew Hay (British Army officer)
5x expanded by Polbot (talk), Spirit of Eagle (talk). Nominated by Spirit of Eagle (talk) at 00:14, 30 June 2014 (UTC).
The article was just a few hundred characters and in the past few days has been expanded to about 2000. An academic source does confirm the hook. The citations are done correctly. The picture has already passed "featured picture" review, and seems in order. The hook is interesting, formatted correctly, and the right size. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
-
- No. Looking again at the content around the hook, the original source says, "Buffy Hummingbirds are often aggressive and defend flower patches where they feed on nectar from plants like Agave and Hibiscus. They also east the juice and flesh of Armatocereus cactus fruit and frequently hawk for insects. During courtship displays, males dive down from above, creating an arc and vocalizing. These birds are considered short-distance migrants." The article says, "The buffy hummingbird is an omnivore. It consumes the nectar of the Agave and Hibiscus. It also consumes cactus flesh from species such as the Armatocereus. The bird is known to aggressively defend the plants it consumes. In addition to plant life, the bird also perches and hunts for insects near the ground." The argument for close paraphrasing would be the order and presentation of information about the agave, hibiscus, and the armatocereus. Spirit of Eagle, it is my opinion that just this part is not close paraphrasing, but if in the whole of your article all of your content was as close as this then after following the order and word choice of the original content for long enough then it might be close paraphrasing. Can you say something about how closely you followed the original sources to help guide our comments about the extent to which this should be considered as close paraphrasing? Also, see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- When I was expanding the article, I attempted to avoid close paraphrasing and copy vios in general. I reworded and restructured most of the article a few minutes ago, so hopefully this will correct any close paraphrasing that I let in the first time around. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- With your recent edits I think the concerns about close paraphrasing are resolved. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- When I was expanding the article, I attempted to avoid close paraphrasing and copy vios in general. I reworded and restructured most of the article a few minutes ago, so hopefully this will correct any close paraphrasing that I let in the first time around. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- No. Looking again at the content around the hook, the original source says, "Buffy Hummingbirds are often aggressive and defend flower patches where they feed on nectar from plants like Agave and Hibiscus. They also east the juice and flesh of Armatocereus cactus fruit and frequently hawk for insects. During courtship displays, males dive down from above, creating an arc and vocalizing. These birds are considered short-distance migrants." The article says, "The buffy hummingbird is an omnivore. It consumes the nectar of the Agave and Hibiscus. It also consumes cactus flesh from species such as the Armatocereus. The bird is known to aggressively defend the plants it consumes. In addition to plant life, the bird also perches and hunts for insects near the ground." The argument for close paraphrasing would be the order and presentation of information about the agave, hibiscus, and the armatocereus. Spirit of Eagle, it is my opinion that just this part is not close paraphrasing, but if in the whole of your article all of your content was as close as this then after following the order and word choice of the original content for long enough then it might be close paraphrasing. Can you say something about how closely you followed the original sources to help guide our comments about the extent to which this should be considered as close paraphrasing? Also, see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I think hook and article are somewhat inaccurate and I have tweaked the hook. This humming bird does not eat cacti in general but, according to the source, its primary diet is nectar and it also eats the juice and flesh of a particular species of cactus. And to say, as the article does, "The bird is known to hostilely defend the plants it consumes." makes it sound as if it eats the plants rather than sips the nectar. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I tagged that statement about hostile defense as needing a citation. I found nothing about this in the sources used for the sentences before and after. Please provide clarification and a citation here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've fixed the point about violent defense of flowers. Source number 2, the cited source, does actually state this, but I had badly muddled the meaning when I was writing the Wikipedia article. Hopefully, this will clear everything up. As for the cactus point, I'm really not sure how it is inaccurate. The hummingbird does in fact eat cacti, even if its primary diet is nectar. (Also, can I please go with "cactuses" in the hook? Its a valid word according to Merriam-Webster [1], and I feel that it will attract more interest). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I duplicated the citation after more sentences to make the source clearer. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've fixed the point about violent defense of flowers. Source number 2, the cited source, does actually state this, but I had badly muddled the meaning when I was writing the Wikipedia article. Hopefully, this will clear everything up. As for the cactus point, I'm really not sure how it is inaccurate. The hummingbird does in fact eat cacti, even if its primary diet is nectar. (Also, can I please go with "cactuses" in the hook? Its a valid word according to Merriam-Webster [1], and I feel that it will attract more interest). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
- I tagged that statement about hostile defense as needing a citation. I found nothing about this in the sources used for the sentences before and after. Please provide clarification and a citation here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
The trouble with the article is that it is so factually inaccurate. For example, the lead states "... consumes cacti, flowers and insects" while the Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive states "Feeds on nectar of flowering Agave, Hibiscus, Lemairocereus, Melocactus and Opuntia". There are other inaccuracies. To use a hook that baldly states that the bird eats cactuses would be thoroughly misleading. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- How is this inaccurate? I've cited Neotropical Birds Online, a project of Cornell University, as the source and the claim that the bird eats cacti and insects is fully supported by the this source (which is of course cited in-line). This seems to be a rather reliable source, so I don't understand why the accuracy of it is under attack. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the cited source seems like a reliable source and that the claim cited to it seems to match the intent of the original source. I see no problem. Both sources could be correct. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- Also, the Lemairocereus, Melocactus and Opuntia are all cactuses. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that the cited source seems like a reliable source and that the claim cited to it seems to match the intent of the original source. I see no problem. Both sources could be correct. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- How is this inaccurate? I've cited Neotropical Birds Online, a project of Cornell University, as the source and the claim that the bird eats cacti and insects is fully supported by the this source (which is of course cited in-line). This seems to be a rather reliable source, so I don't understand why the accuracy of it is under attack. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Alt1: ... that no one knows the total population of the buffy hummingbird (pictured)?
- I've added a second source due to controversy over the cactus claim. This one is supported by the IUCN, so it should be reliable. I prefer the cactus hook, but I'll be happy to use this if it is more acceptable. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have edited the article to improve its accuracy and added some more information. I suggest
- ALT2 ... that the buffy hummingbird (pictured) feeds on the flesh and juice of cactus fruits? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- I like it. It feels a little sing-songy, which will no doubt increase clicks. For what its worth, this hook has my approval. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Someone else will be needed to approve the hook. I managed to obtain more details of the bird's description which I have added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- I like it. It feels a little sing-songy, which will no doubt increase clicks. For what its worth, this hook has my approval. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Reviewer needed to check the new ALT2 hook and make any other checks needed. I struck the original hook, since ALT2 clarifies it. (Alt1 has not been reviewed, and explicitly needs to be if it is going to be used.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
ALT2 is fine and supported. ALT1 is also supported but not so fine. Other problems (close-paraphrasing and the inaccuracies introduced when trying to avoid it) have been resolved. Belle (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)