Template:Did you know nominations/Moturoa Island (Bay of Islands)

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 Hilst talk 19:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Moturoa Island (Bay of Islands)

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that in the 1980s when Moturoa Island lost all its endangered kiwi to pest, experts reintroduced seven birds – today there could be as many as 300 kiwis on the island?

• Source: Kiwi were reintroduced to the island in 1984–85, with seven (including three breeding pairs) transported from Waitangi. The reintroduction was very successful – Kiwi numbers today have soared. A local landowner said there was 'great debate' over how many Kiwi live on the island, but 'estimates range from 100–300'.

• Reviewed:

5x expanded by Petersmeter (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Petersmeter (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC).

• starting review--Kevmin § 00:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
  • First thing I'm seeing is a number of uncited statements in the article. Each unique fact should be cited.--Kevmin § 00:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Petersmeter Additionally the hook fact needs to be present in the article, right now the article states 100-300 Kiwi (what species?), and does not cover the extirpation of the local population at all.--Kevmin § 00:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
    • @Petersmeter: these issues still need to be addressed the nom here updated.--Kevmin § 19:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Kevmin, and thanks for the articles you suggested. I have spent a bit of time expending the article and you should see fairly substantial changes since you last checked. However, I haven't yet made any changes to the hook. I'm not too sure how this works - do you need me to update the did you know on this page now?Petersmeter (talk)

Petersmeter Good morning, the expansions are great looking, we dont have to worry about length issues now and the sourcing is no longer an issue. First thing we should get cleared up are the areas with citation needed tags. All information in an article should be clear as to what source it came from, so adjusting the citation placements if a fact is from a citation already used, or adding a citation if one doesn't already exist in article.--Kevmin § 17:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kevmin: Thanks - I have fixed the citations now. Petersmeter (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Petersmeter The Wine comapny website sadly does't meet wp:Reliable for "long island", I'd recommend just removing the second sentence of the etymology section and let readers come to conclusions. I also tagged out a portion of the History section regarding the shoal. The reverend "watching the unloading" is not present in the news article you provisded, it should be sourced or removed.--Kevmin § 17:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Petersmeter we are almost there! The article is well sourced now, has no copy violations and is policy compliant. Our remaining issue is the "400" number in the hook here. Either the hook or the article need to be updated to reflect the same number "100-300" is the amount in the source. Do you have a source for "400"?--Kevmin § 19:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Kevmin Feeble excuse, but I think the 400 must have been a mistake. I have changed it to 300 to match the source.Petersmeter (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

All concerns have been addressed. Article new enough, now long enough, sourcing is good, and article written in a neutral manner. no close paraphrasing seen in the article now. hook cited and sourced in article to reliable sourcing that checks out. Looks Good to go.--Kevmin § 17:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

References