Talk:Wild Bird Fund

A fact from Wild Bird Fund appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 June 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Wild Bird Fund is New York City's first and only wildlife hospital (example treatment pictured)?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wild Bird Fund.

New York City Low‑importance

	New York City portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Birds Low‑importance

Wild Bird Fund is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

Did you know nomination

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 Desertarun (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the Wild Bird Fund is New York City's first and only wildlife hospital?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Flightless (Record Label)
Comment: ~~I'm working on securing an image for this. Please hold off a couple days before promoting?~~ Update: Good to go. Got some photos. See commons:Category:Wild Bird Fund. All otrs pending at the moment, though. Adding a couple options that would look good on the main page here. I'd probably opt for one of the kestrel pics personally, but curious to hear what others say.

Created by Rhododendrites (talk). Self-nominated at 14:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

American kestrel treated at the Wild Bird Fund.

Song sparrow treated at the Wild Bird Fund

American kestrel fledglings at the Wild Bird Fund.

Nestling feral pigeon at the Wild Bird Fund.

Rhododendrites is this a 5x expansion nomination? From the edit history, it looks like the article was created on January 15, 2021‎, and then an expansion beginning on May 19, 2021 (not May 20 where the article currently is located on the DYK nom page). Assuming that is the case (unless you moved the article into main space from a user page), a character count shows that the article's prose has not been expanded sufficiently. The character count before expansion was 1118 characters, making the target expansion count 5,590 characters. The article currently has 3,874 characters which is 1,716 characters short of a 5x expansion. In the future, when you nominate an article make sure you indicate whether the article is new or expanded in the template. Also, make sure you place the article under the time stamp date of when the expansion began or the article was first created. This nomination should have been placed under May 19, not May 20. I will hold off on doing a further review until these issues are addressed. On a positive note, I enjoyed reading this article and the pictures are lovely.4meter4 (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: It was in a sandbox. May 20 is the day it was moved. Articles that have been worked on exclusively in a user or user talk subpage or at articles for creation or in the Draft namespace and then moved (or in some cases pasted) to the article mainspace are considered new as of the date they reach the mainspace. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. You may want to leave a comment for reviewers next time to make that clear ahead of time in future noms. I will continue reviewing momentarily.4meter4 (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article is new enough, long enough, and within policy. The hook fact is verifiable to the cited reference and the length is fine. Rhododendrites, the only issue I can see is that the QPQ has not been done. I will take a look at the pics shortly.4meter4 (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: QPQ in progress. It was over deadline, so I quickfailed, but I've learned some people provide leeway for newbies, which is fine by me. I left a message clarifying some of the other issues for the nominator yesterday. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: It's ok if the review is not finished and is ongoing. Just provide a link here to the article review, so we know you are committed to an ongoing review for your QPQ. If you look at Template:Did you know nominations/Philip Ewell, I cited this review for my QPQ even though this review is not yet finished.4meter4 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: I don't understand. what, other than the link which is already there above, should I include? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't see the reviewed link. My eyes glazed over it for some reason. My mistake. Forget about the QPQ issue.4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Approving hook for promotion. Comment on pics for promoter. All of the pics are usable, as an e-mail approving their use has been sent through the proper channels according to policy. I prefer the first two images on the left, simply because the text is shorter under the pictures. The text on the pics on the right is too long for what we typically approve at DYK.4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. As for the images, I have no problem altering the captions so as to select the best one for the main page. I'm inclined towards File:Toni kestrel phyllis tseng wbf.jpg (OTRS has now received the permission [just waiting to get those emails processed] FYI), but also content to leave it up to the promoter. Any of them can just be reduced to "[bird] being treated at the Wild Bird Fund". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I shortened the text per your suggestion. I'll leave it to the promoting admin to choose a picture.4meter4 (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logo

@The Rambling Man: Unless I'm losing my mind (possible), the "n.a."s in the logo file are added automatically by the upload wizard. There is another template that we use sometimes which requires even less input from the uploader because it uses boilerplate text, {{Non-free use rationale logo}}, but using that requires the user to manually go in and edit the file page after uploading to replace the template. If you're sure "n.a." is unacceptable, that probably merits discussion re: the upload wizard. For the time being, I've gone ahead and made the above replacement here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:45, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed at the wizard talk page. People uploading fair use images need to fill in all NFCC justifications, regardless of what the wizard does I'm afraid. "n.a." is not a justification for any element of NFCC. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]