Template:Did you know nominations/Standard-winged nightjar

Standard-winged nightjar

(

)

Standard-winged nightjar

... that during breeding season, the male standard-winged nightjar (pictured) grows a wing ornament over twice the length of its body?

Source: Cleere, N.; Kirwan, G. M. (2020). del Hoyo, J.; Elliott, A.; Sargatal, J.; Christie, D. A.; de Juana, E. (eds.). "Standard-winged Nightjar (Caprimulgus longipennis), version 1.0". Birds of the World Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. doi:10.2173/bow.stwnig1.01. 21–22 cm (excluding male's "standards", which reach 45–53·5 cm in length)

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Harvey Tuckett

Improved to Good Article status by Reconrabbit (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

Recon rabbit 22:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC).

The article is fine in every respect (long enough, well-written and recently enough promoted to GA), and the hook is good, but it is not backed up by the wording in the article. In the article it simply says that the standards are "much longer" than the body, now "twice the length". There should also be an inline citation supporting the claim directly after the sentence in which it is made. It's a small fix, after which the article should be ready for DYK. Yakikaki (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
I believe that the length given of a broad secondary flight feather[4] on each wing elongated to up to 53.5 centimetres makes sense to describe as "twice the length of its body" since earlier the bird's length is given as this medium-sized (20–23 centimetres (7.9–9.1 in) long) nightjar and 53.5÷2=26.75 > 23 cm. Though since it's "up to" I could see justifying adding "that can be" after "wing ornament" in the hook. Additionally the quote in the source describes the bird's body as "21-22 cm" and immediately after gives a minimum length of 45 cm with the standards. I could change it to say directly in the article "over twice the length" instead of just "much longer" though. Recon rabbit 00:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I wasn't arguing that the facts were not in the article or not supported by the inline citations. DYK used to have a rule, though, which stated "The facts of the hook need to appear in the article with a citation no later than at the end of the sentences in which they appear." However I see now that the rules have changed and become more flexible, and I can therefore happily drop this minor objection and give the green light to the article. Nice work! Yakikaki (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)