A rock wren with a spider in its beak
- ... that rock wrens (pictured) build pavements made of flat stones around their nest to keep nestlings dry?
Improved to Good Article status by
Monkeysmashingkeyboards (
talk).
Number of QPQs required:
0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.
monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2026 (UTC).
- General eligibility:
- New enough:
- Long enough:
- Other problems:
- Possibly flawed GA review might impact eligibility.
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|
|
Overall: 
So let's review over the good parts here first: the article seems suitable for appearance on DYK quality-wise, and the hook is cited and interesting. Image clearly demonstrates the subject as well. An Earwig check only turned up 5.7% likeliness to some sources, based entirely on short bits and pieces, so there doesn't appear to be copyright issues. Doesn't look like a DYK is required either. So it seems good to go in that aspect, but there is one issue: the GA review for the article does not seem like it thoroughly inspected the article, and there is no spotcheck, which is required for reviews nowadays. Because of that, the GAN process was incomplete. Consequentially, I don't know if this article is eligible for DYK. I am requesting additional input on this if possible. λ NegativeMP1 23:57, 12 January 2026 (UTC)
- (lurking WP:TOL editor) Technically, this can be DYK'd, but I agree that the GA review is rather underwhelming. As far as I am aware, there is no formal process besides GAR to repeal an invalid GA review. I will look into what can be done, but the DYKN should be on hold until the validity of the GA status is cleared up. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
Is it fine for me to just contact the reviewer to ask for a re-review? Cheers! monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I'll start a GA reassessment soon™. monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
- @NegativeMP1: GAR is complete! monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2026 (UTC)
- @NegativeMP1: if you have time, could you update your DYK review? Thanks in advance. monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I forgot about this. Yes, if the article stayed at GAR and got a thorough review, which it did, then there should be no issues.
λ NegativeMP1 03:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
.jpg)
So let's review over the good parts here first: the article seems suitable for appearance on DYK quality-wise, and the hook is cited and interesting. Image clearly demonstrates the subject as well. An Earwig check only turned up 5.7% likeliness to some sources, based entirely on short bits and pieces, so there doesn't appear to be copyright issues. Doesn't look like a DYK is required either. So it seems good to go in that aspect, but there is one issue: the GA review for the article does not seem like it thoroughly inspected the article, and there is no spotcheck, which is required for reviews nowadays. Because of that, the GAN process was incomplete. Consequentially, I don't know if this article is eligible for DYK. I am requesting additional input on this if possible. λ NegativeMP1 23:57, 12 January 2026 (UTC)