Template:Did you know nominations/Taiwan bush warbler

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) 07:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan bush warbler edit

(

)

... that the Taiwan bush warbler was described in 1917, but was not named as a distinct species until 2000? Source: "Bradypterus bush-warblers were first collected in the mountains of Taiwan in 1917 ... Subsequent study of morphology and vocalizations has confirmed that the Taiwanese form is an undescribed species, which we propose to name" "A new bush-warbler from Taiwan" published in 2000
- ALT1:... that the Taiwan bush warbler was named as a distinct species partly because of its distinctive song? Source: "More recently, PDR, FGR, and P. Alström (pers. comm.) realized, on the basis of its distinctive song, that the Taiwan form must be an undescribed species"

Reviewed: Embassy of Poland, Manila

5x expanded by Gulumeemee (talk). Self-nominated at 02:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC).

I'll take a look at this shortly. Mélencron (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Article was expanded from 212 to 3257 characters within the past seven days and is therefore long enough to be nominated. A quick pass-through of the article to check whether statements in the article are appropriately cited shows that they can be verified by all adjacent sources, and the main hook is correctly cited (with two inline references within the article), as is the alternate hook. Main hook seems more interesting, in my opinion. All references are accessible online, hooks are short enough, no other issues identified within the article. QPQ has been completed and appears fine; article is cited with Polish sources, so AGF tick was given, and no red flags with the QPQ. I'll mark this as good to go. Mélencron (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)