Template:Did you know nominations/Webbed foot

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Webbed foot[edit]

(

)

Drawing of the webbed foot of a duck

~~... that several types of mammals have webbed feet, including beavers, otters, platypuses, and water opossums?~~ Source: Biology of Mammals, The Beaver: Natural History of a Wetlands Engineer

Reviewed: Taina Asili

Created by Yeptune (talk). Nominated by Kaldari (talk) at 19:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC).

Article good, but the hook is boring. How about...
ALT1: ... that some ~~waterfowl~~ ducks use their webbed feet as an aid in elaborate mating displays?

Kingsif (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kingsif: That sounds great to me! Kaldari (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Great! Kingsif (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Per Rule H2, you cannot approve your own hook. Could another reviewer take a look at this? Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

As there's no clear evidence that a full review has been done (saying "article good" is not a full review), I've conducted one
Y Article is long enough (10994 chars), new enough (moved to mainspace 11 December, nominated on 13 December), and article is within policy. Sourcing looks good, AGF as most of them are offline
N The hook is short enough and interesting, but is not mentioned with a source in the article anywhere. Please add to the article with an appropriate source
N QPQ not done. The nominator, Kaldari has 5 previous DYK credits, and so is required to review another article for QPQ. As "Review requirement (QPQ) – For every nomination you make you must review one other nomination (unrelated to you)‍—‌this is called quid pro quo or QPQ... Exception: If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated) then the nomination is exempt from QPQ." This is no the case here
Overall, a nice article but hook needs to be in the article, and a QPQ is required by Kaldari. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Thanks for reviewing, though some comments: I’m pretty sure this is Kaldari's fifth nom, not requiring QPQ (it’s less than and including 5, if I remember correctly/my reading is correct). Isn’t the source for the statement in the article at the end of the next sentence? Kingsif (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

In the Other behaviors section, it only mentions ducks using it more courtship, not "some waterfowl". If it's just ducks, we should put sucks into the hook instead of waterfowl. And no, they have 5 previous nominations, and so this is their sixth, so they need to do a QPQ. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: I'm fine with changing it to ducks. I'll try to do the review soon. I only have limited (cell phone) internet access for the next few days, though, so I might be a little slow. Kaldari (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Fixed the hook and reviewed the Taina Asili DYK. Kaldari (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Issues have been fixed, this nomination is now good to go. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)