The following discussion 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Created/expanded by Sainsf (talk). Self nom at 05:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Sources look strong (academic publishers, several journals, etc.); expansion of 505 characters to 2981 is sufficient; no other problems. Have you considered asking for one of the images to be included? Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
The hook fact does not have an inline citation immediately after the sentence it is contained in, and indeed does not match the article in key details. There is no indication that "once" is appropriate, changes were observed after five to six generations, and subsequently (article doesn't say how long, but the implication is that more generations were involved) completely changed. Under the circumstances, this hook needs to be adjusted and its source(s) clarified. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
The source is only the book citation following it, and as for the adjustment of the hook, could you suggest a better way of writing it? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I have to confess I'm very dubious about this hook as written: it's based on a report from an 18th-century botanist, Joseph Gottlieb Kölreuter, which was challenged by Lindley, a digitalis expert, shortly thereafter, but conditionally accepted ("may probably be trusted") by Darwin. However, the report is over 200 years old: if it could be reproduced scientifically, I would think it would have by now, and thapsi and purpurea would now be more closely linked rather than different species. Beyond that, the propagation in the source is four or five generations of artificial fertilization to assume characteristics of purpurea, not five or six, "& at last was completely converted into it" at some later point. However, I think this information can be used if you bring Darwin himself into it as the person who reiterated Kölreuter's assertion, which also has the advantage of making it more "hooky", since tons of people will recognize Darwin. (I've modified the text of the article so it now mentions Darwin by name.) Perhaps something like:
Let me know what you think. —BlueMoonset (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Nice alteration, I approve of it. The fact must be true alright, as it is published in a book of the well-known Darwin. Sadly there is no other source, but though the report is much old, surely the science could not have changed. I believe this could make an interesting fact.
Well, I decided to add an image to go with the hook. I did not want that before, but, reading Nyttend's comment above, I have found two nice photos, chose the best one:
It's true that Darwin accepted it, but even he wasn't sure: note the "probably". Any number of things could have gone awry with Kölreuter's experiments: he could have used the wrong pollen one year, a bee could have gotten to one of the thapsi flowers with purpurea pollen before the artificial propagation (pollenation by hand) was done... the possibilities are many. Kölreuter states it as a fact, but it could be an incorrect (false) fact. I'm not nearly so sure as you are. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Needs a reviewer to check the ALT1 hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
I am not too happy with ALT1 as the article states "a report that was considered "probably" trustworthy by Charles Darwin" which is rather different from Charles Darwin accepting a botanist's report. Why not go for something completely different such as - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)