Template:Did you know nominations/Iris cedretii
- 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 — Maile (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Iris cedreti[edit]
... that ....?
- ALT1:
is considered critically endangered due the building of ski resorts on Lebanon's mountains
- ALT1:
Created/expanded by DavidAnstiss (talk). Self-nominated at 07:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC).
- QPQ: Probably OK: according to User talk:DavidAnstiss, the author has had only two DYK accepted, but will ask him to confirm.
- I have had 3 DYK's nominations which were all were successful ! Iris perrieri, Iris timofejewii and Iris atrofusca DavidAnstiss (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Good! Just wanted to be sure...
- I have had 3 DYK's nominations which were all were successful ! Iris perrieri, Iris timofejewii and Iris atrofusca DavidAnstiss (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
:: ALT2 ... that ski resort construction in Lebanon's mountains has critically endangered the rare iris cedreti?CWH (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hook #2 better: uses active voice, includes article name, and the source cited does not say that the species is "critically" endangered. CWH (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- IUCN source of critically endangered- http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/201657/0 (hence used in infobox) DavidAnstiss (talk) 19:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hook #2 better: uses active voice, includes article name, and the source cited does not say that the species is "critically" endangered. CWH (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I came by to promote this, but the article is largely a series of one-sentence paragraphs peppered with numbers. Is there any way to make this read more smoothly and organized into paragraphs? Perhaps you could refer to other iris articles. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies, Yoninah -- I misunderstood. I didn't see in the list of DYK qualifications that the article had to be of a certain quality, only not a stub. I of course defer to your judgment.ch (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yoninah My finding was that the article was ready to go, and I deferred to your judgment even though I do not see in the DYK qualifications that the article had to be anything more than a stub. Did I misunderstand? Is there such a requirment? ch (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- @CWH: If you have been following the discussions at WT:DYK over the past few years, you would know that article quality is a basic prerequisite for the appearance of any article on the Main Page. Plenty of hooks have been pulled from the prep areas for poor writing and composition. Yoninah (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Have tweaked the text and removed spaces and gaps. This form is the way I write the article to make sure everything is referenced correctly. It refers to 2 other articles in the bio-chemistry section but not within the description section because I think it gets to confusing. Please tell if it needs more editing!DavidAnstiss (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, DavidAnstiss, for streamlining the page. I did further copyediting to remove the unexplained abundance of commas, and also fixed the links. The hook ref is verified and cited inline. Rest of review per CWH. ALT2 good to go. Yoninah (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yoninah Thanks for clarifying! But I still wonder how someone is to know that reading the DYK discussions for several years is necessary. Perhaps there is more to the story, but if there is a consensus, shouldn't it be written into the actual requirement? This would save fools like me and adepts like you no small amount of time. In any case, I appreciate your explanation and your patience.ch (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- CWH Agreed, it should be written into the rules – but those who propound it (and pull hooks because of it) say it's so obvious that it needn't be stated. Hmmm. If you want to propose that we add a "new rule" to our rules-saturated DYK project, please bring it up at the talk page. Best, Yoninah (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yoninah Thanks for clarifying! But I still wonder how someone is to know that reading the DYK discussions for several years is necessary. Perhaps there is more to the story, but if there is a consensus, shouldn't it be written into the actual requirement? This would save fools like me and adepts like you no small amount of time. In any case, I appreciate your explanation and your patience.ch (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Yoninah My finding was that the article was ready to go, and I deferred to your judgment even though I do not see in the DYK qualifications that the article had to be anything more than a stub. Did I misunderstand? Is there such a requirment? ch (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies, Yoninah -- I misunderstood. I didn't see in the list of DYK qualifications that the article had to be of a certain quality, only not a stub. I of course defer to your judgment.ch (talk) 03:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I can't promote ALT2 because ski resort construction is only one of a number of factors critically endangering this species. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2016 (UTC)- ALT3: ... that no conservation measures are in place to protect the critically endangered Iris cedreti, endemic to Lebanon? Yoninah (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Approving ALT3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
