Template talk:Did you know/Sidalcea nelsoniana

Sidalcea nelsoniana[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as 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

... that Nelson's checkermallow (pictured) finds wildfires beneficial?

Reviewed: Graham Leydin ([1])

Created by IceCreamAntisocial (talk). Nominated by Rcej (talk) at 08:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a comment and signature (or just a signature if endorsing) after each aspect you have reviewed:
Hook

Length, format, content rules:Within specified length. Formatted correctly,
Source:The key fact is not cited though the paragraph has a trailing citation. Inline citation required for the text - "Its habitat is naturally maintained by a regime of periodic wildfires that clear out large and woody vegetation."
Interest:Adequate. (Don't know who signed "Adequate"—I don't find the Or. or ALT1 very hooky, I'm afraid. Tony (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

That was me, the QPQ reviewer. Perhaps you could suggest a "hookier" fact. AshLin (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image suitability, if applicable:Suitable image. The image is claimed to be in the public domain due to being a work of a govt department viz. US FWS. The author is supposedly unknown. However the source of the image claims "Jeff Dalton, USFWS" as the author. Does that mean the image is copyrighted to the individual or in public domain? Not being a citizen of USA, I cannot judge this and request another opinion.
ALT hooks, if proposed:Nil. However, the hook needs rewording vide comment by User:Rjanag below. Rjanag's first suggestion proposed as ALT1.

ALT1: ... that wildfires are beneficial to the perennial herb Nelson's checkermallow (pictured)?

Article

Length:Long enough.
Vintage:New.
Sourcing (V, RS, BLP):Verifiable resources. Reliable sources. However, being a WP:TOL article, imho it is reasonable to expect better referencing by using cite templates, such as cite web, cite journal etc. The present referencing does not provide even the minimum details vide Wikipedia:Citing_sources#What_information_to_include.
Neutrality:Neutral.
Plagiarism/close paraphrasing:imho, no close paraphrasing.
Copyvio:No.
Obvious faults in prose, structure, formatting:Well written.

Reviewing completed. Discussion on alt continues. AshLin (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comments/discussion:

I'm uncomfortable with the wording of the hook, which ascribes sentience to a plant. Shouldn't it be something more along the lines of "that wildfires are beneficial to Nelson's checkermallow", "that Nelson's checkermallow thrives after wildfires", etc.? Also, not a major problem, but didn't we just have a hook a few days ago about another flower that needs regular wildfires to bloom? rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, the average person who reads that hook will not think we are claiming a plant is sentient. Evaluation of non-literal context is a pretty basic skill. But I do not want to horrify anyone, so let's go with ALT1. :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 02:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two points then, the referencing needs improvement & if someone can just confirm that the image is in fact free, we are good to go. AshLin (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is from a website of a US government agency, and the photo itself is credited to a government employee on behalf of the US Fish and Wildlife Service. So, the image looks good for use. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AshLin (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Template:Did you know/Queue/_ on ____ by ____.