Talk:Ripper (duck)
Add topicLatest comment: 10 months ago by TarnishedPath in topic Did you know nomination
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
 | A fact from Ripper (duck) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 September 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Did you know archive/2025/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ripper (duck). |  |
Did you know nomination
[edit]- 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. You can locate your hook here.No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by TarnishedPath talk 05:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
( )
- ... that the earliest evidence of vocal learning in waterfowl was a musk duck named Ripper saying "you bloody fool"?
- Source: ten Cate, Carel (2021). "Re-evaluating vocal production learning in non-oscine birds". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 376 (1836) 20200249. doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0249
- ALT1: ... that a musk duck named Ripper could say "you bloody fool"? Source: Lu, Donna (7 September 2021). "'You bloody fool': Australian talking duck can imitate speech". The Guardian
- ALT2: ... that the earliest evidence of vocal learning in waterfowl is believed to be a musk duck named Ripper saying "you bloody fool"?
- ALT3: ... that a musk duck that could say "you bloody fool" is among the earliest evidence of vocal learning in waterfowl?
- Reviewed:
Created by Ethmostigmus (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.
Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Article is new enough, long enough, well sourced and neutral. It is plagiarism free, with no concerns raised by Earwig. Hooks are cited and interesting. No QPQ required as it is the nominator's first DYK. I marked one vague time statement with [when?] and it could be great if that could be more precise. I think the lead could be extended a little too. Neither of these is a deal breaker for DYK tho. For the nominations, DYK as a whole is very cautious of 'firsts' and 'earliests' - with this in mind ALT0 would be more precise if "one of" was added in (which is also described right at the bottom of the article). ALT1 is OK I think. Overall it's a really nice article and a welcome addition to Wikipedia. Welcome to the DYK project too. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Ethmostigmus: coule you take a look at the above? Lajmmoore (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Lucy, so sorry I missed this! I'm happy to add a qualifier to ALT0 (maybe "that the earliest evidence of vocal learning in waterfowl is believed to be a musk duck named Ripper saying "you bloody fool?") or change ALT0 altogether to something along the lines of "that a musk duck that could say "you bloody fool" is among the earliest evidence of vocal learning in waterfowl?" - happy with whatever you/the promoter think is best! Re: the imprecise death date marked with [when?], I have no way of narrowing this down - the only source that mentions Ripper's death is the Washington Post article, which simply states that "Ripper is no longer alive". I suspect that a precise date is unknown due to the bushfires that destroyed most records at Tidbinbilla in 2003, but no source explicitly confirms this. I'm not really sure how to improve on this - would it be best to simply remove any mention of Ripper being deceased? Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)
- No worries. So, I think any of those wordings would work - I would just list them as ALTs below here. As for the death, I'd switch the sentence to something like "In a 2021 article, WP reported Ripper as dead ..." - that at least makes it clear what the reportage in the source is. As reviewer I can review the nominations, but the promoters are the ones that choose which ALT might run on the front page. Lajmmoore (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and added the other hooks to this nom and altered the unclear statement on death to read "in 2021 The Washington Post reported that he was deceased". Let me know if anything else is needed! Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
thanks very much looks good and its such a neat addition from a first nominator! Lajmmoore (talk) 07:29, 7 September 2025 (UTC)