Template:Did you know nominations/Serruria elongata
- 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) 05:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Serruria elongata
[edit]
Serruria elongata
- ... that flower heads of the long-stalk spiderhead (pictured) smell strongest at dusk? Source
- ALT1
... that the long-stalk spiderhead (pictured) species is endemic to the southern Western Cape province of South Africa? - Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Grappenhall Heys Walled Garden
- ALT1
5x expanded by Dwergenpaartje (talk) and Casliber (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 13:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting:
- Other problems:
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Invalid status "[[File:Symbo...d.svg|16px]]" - use one of "y", "?", "maybe", "no" or "again"
ticking based on my understanding of 1l2l3k's comment, not because I've reviewed this independently. Personally I think ALT0 is interesting but ALT1 is not. › Mortee talk 00:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's a shame that 1l2l3k does not know how to properly use the DYK checklist template; the status is never an icon, but things like "y", "no", and so on—Template:DYK checklist/doc shows all the fields, their valid values, and what they mean. Mortee, as a general rule you should not be adding a tick unless you yourself have reviewed it, but in this case, with the green tick added to the status field (where it does not display because that isn't how the template is designed to work), I won't revert you even though you used the gray tick. The thing to do when faced with this situation is to ping the original reviewer to get them to properly include an icon with their review; if they don't turn up, then call for a new reviewer. I have struck ALT1 because it hadn't been independently reviewed, is unsourced, and Mortee doesn't believe it to be interesting. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset regardless of the markup, I thought it was clear that 1l2l3k meant to pass this, so that I was only fixing this in a syntactical sense, not adding my personal stamp of approval. Hence the grey AGF tick. Fair point that I could have asked the original reviewer to do it themselves instead. I considered it but thought it was bureaucratic, myself. Good to have a second opinion. › Mortee talk 23:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this, but I found the writing difficult to understand in places. I added numerous "clarification needed" tags in these places:- Description, 2nd paragraph: a word is missing here.
Resolved - Taxonomy: in the previous sentence it's called a paper, here it's called a book? Resolved
- Distribution, 2nd paragraph: where did fire come from? Resolved
- Please also provide a cite in the lead for the common name "spiderheads". Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC) Resolved
- BlueMoonset regardless of the markup, I thought it was clear that 1l2l3k meant to pass this, so that I was only fixing this in a syntactical sense, not adding my personal stamp of approval. Hence the grey AGF tick. Fair point that I could have asked the original reviewer to do it themselves instead. I considered it but thought it was bureaucratic, myself. Good to have a second opinion. › Mortee talk 23:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's a shame that 1l2l3k does not know how to properly use the DYK checklist template; the status is never an icon, but things like "y", "no", and so on—Template:DYK checklist/doc shows all the fields, their valid values, and what they mean. Mortee, as a general rule you should not be adding a tick unless you yourself have reviewed it, but in this case, with the green tick added to the status field (where it does not display because that isn't how the template is designed to work), I won't revert you even though you used the gray tick. The thing to do when faced with this situation is to ping the original reviewer to get them to properly include an icon with their review; if they don't turn up, then call for a new reviewer. I have struck ALT1 because it hadn't been independently reviewed, is unsourced, and Mortee doesn't believe it to be interesting. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Yoninah: Most of these points had already been addressed by Casliber when I received a message. I added the missing word “tip” and expressed that pointy to pointed corresponds to acute to acuminate in the scientific text. I’ve removed the explanation of the name "spiderhead". The statement could not be referenced (I must have made it up without being aware), and I think it is actually not appropriate in the species article (it would be repeated in every article on a Serruria species, and there are over 100).
- I added another explanation with a reference to the article on Serruria. The explanation is not entirely satisfactory because it says it refers to the fact that the leaves look as if covered in a spider’s web. Why than would the plant be called "spiderhead"? I assume the English name is a not entirely correct translation from the Afrikaans name "spinnekopbos". Although it could be translated as "spidershead shrub", in Dutch "spinnekop" is actually a spider and not a spider’s head. This could be construed by combining different sources and drawing a trivial conclusion, but this would however still be OR. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Dwergenpaartje: But you're calling it a long-stalk spiderhead in the lead of the article and in the hook. Based on previous discussions at WP:ERRORS, this non-scientific name must be sourced. Yoninah (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Yoninah:Yes, but that was already the case before the nomination. The species vernacular name is covered by references 2, 3 and 7, and also by this webpage, which does not contain unique information. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
@Dwergenpaartje: I added the cite for you. Restoring tick per 1l2l3k's review. Yoninah (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Yoninah:Yes, but that was already the case before the nomination. The species vernacular name is covered by references 2, 3 and 7, and also by this webpage, which does not contain unique information. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
