Talk:Asplenium fontanum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SL93 (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asplenium fontanum

(
)
  • ... that fountain spleenwort does not grow in Amersham churchyard, near a waterfall in northern England or on the castle walls at Alnwick? Source: "Supposed to be now extinct in England; it was once found on Amersham Church ... at a waterfall in either Northumberland or Westmoreland ... once grew on Alnwick Castle; but if so, it is no longer found there."

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self-nominated at 06:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article is new enough and long enough, a QPQ has been completed, and I didn't need Earwig to be satisfied there were no copyright concerns. The article is well-sourced, but some statements are not supported: there is no reference for 2n = 72 or that the 1830s reports of the plant in Britain are dubious. The description section uses a lot of technical terminology which I recommend explaining or linking. As for the hook, it's odd to single out these specific areas which don't seem significant. I suggest reworking it to explain how it was reportedly found in Britain in the late 1830s but is now extinct there. – Teratix ₵ 10:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Teratix: What a dreadful description! I have rewritten it. How about ALT1, although I must admit to rather liking ALT0. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT1 ... that in the nineteenth century, fountain spleenwort was reported as growing in Britain but it is now only found in continental Europe, mainly in mountainous areas?
I prefer this, although I would just cut the bit about its mountainous habitat to be concise, and replace 'continental' with 'Western' to be consistent with the article. Also, could you clarify how the nineteenth-century reports are dubious? – Teratix ₵ 09:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is only my opinion that the hook should be trimmed, but it must be consistent with the article and the claim the nineteenth-century reports are doubtful must be sourced or removed, as it seems to be mere editorialising. – Teratix ₵ 01:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Teratix: I have trimmed the hook, but we need to keep "continental Europe" because Britain is part of "Western Europe". I have removed the phrase in the article about the British sightings being dubious. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • So change "Western Europe" in the article to "continental Europe". – Teratix ₵ 05:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Western Europe" is a more natural wording. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, which is it? – Teratix ₵ 10:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is both, but "Western Europe" means the western part of Europe as opposed to "Eastern Europe". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If both are correct, why not just pick one and stick with it? – Teratix ₵ 11:46, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Western Europe is correct for the article because the fern is found in the western part of Europe, continental Europe is right for the hook because it emphasizes that it grows in continental Europe but not in the island group of Britain. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the hook used "Western Europe" it would be clear from context it meant "Western continental Europe" (not including Britain), as it specifies directly beforehand that the plant is not present in Britain. But, yeah, this is a pretty trivial thing to hold up the nomination over, so I'll give it the and let the promoter decide what to do. – Teratix ₵ 12:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I came by to promote this, but I feel that Teratix you've taken all the life out of the hook. Could we go with ALT0 but instead of saying it doesn't grow there, say it "no longer" grows there? Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I previously said, it just seems odd to single out these specific locations with no indication of their relevance (the waterfall isn't even named). As for taking the life out of the hook; some articles just aren't suited to produce incredibly interesting ones for a general audience and you have to do the best you can with what you've got. I will try to think of some more. – Teratix ₵ 23:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree with @Cwmhiraeth and Yoninah:, and I share @BlueMoonset:'s concern about prolonging the review. ALT0 gives us a better picture. Just a comment about 'general audience': There are many subjects that, by themselves, don't appeal to a "general audience", let alone one statement from the given article, i.e.the hook, so we must be careful not to assert personal opinions too strongly when evaluating a hook, as they can reduce a hook to a boring and near meaningless statement. Based on reliable sources and the other criteria, the article, and Cwmhiraeth's original ALT0, is good to go. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Interesting to a broad audience" is one of the criteria, which ALT0 is not. – Teratix ₵ 00:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT2 is misleading as it takes information out of context and more than suggests that the Spleenwort is an endangered species, which it's not. The IUCN source clearly says, "Listed as Least Concern because, although it has a small area of occupancy (AOO) of 608 km² and is threatened in certain countries, the species is locally common and has a stable population trend." (Emphasis added) Also, there's no need to list a string of countries by name. If we're not going to go with ALT0 then ALT3 should be considered instead. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT3 ... that despite the reported disappearance from Britain and other European countries the fountain spleenwort is still considered to have a stable population trend?
  • ALT2 does not suggest the spleenwort is an endangered species; it explicitly says the opposite. It merely presents two seemingly incongruous facts (the species has disappeared from some countries yet is of least concern), inviting the reader to visit the article to see how they are reconciled (the species is locally common with a stable population trend). Listing all the countries is not strictly necessary but does make the hook more interesting by emphasising the scale of the disappearance (five countries), as "other European countries" could mean as little as two.
  • ALT3 is sufficiently hooky and fine to use, giving mostly the same information, but, in my opinion, not in the most interesting way. – Teratix ₵ 08:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT2 stated that the Spleenwort has disappeared from several countries, yet there wasn't much concern for it, implying that it was endangered but no one cared much, and was confusing to say the least, given the missing context. ALT3, while also mentioning that the Spleentwort has frequently disappeared, clarifies matters by saying that it still has a stable population trend, which excludes any notion that it's an endangered plant. What is interesting to you, me and other people can vary. As was said, it's best not to assert personal opinions too strongly. All hooks in this nomination are interesting to one degree or another, depending on the reader. ALT0 is still fine by me, is its own hook, and is not misleading, given its simple yet interesting scope. That is, it's interesting to those who are interested in plants. This is why I've never pushed the "general audience" idea too much. Nearly all subjects, esp specialized subjects, are not interesting to a 'general audience', let alone one statement about that subject. I've always placed emphasis on factual criteria. i.e.Sources, facts, hook length, etc. At this point we should let the nominator decide, so long as the factual criteria is satisfied. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gwillhickers: Thank you. If you were to approve all the hooks and give them a formal tick, the promoter could choose which one to use. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I approve of your original hook, and ALT3, for reasons stated. I am reluctant to jump in and sort of take over Teratix's review with an approval tick, even though there's no policy that says I can't. Two editors have expressed their approval for ALT0, and we have ALT3, sort of a take off from Teratix's ALT2, per the Spleenwort's frequent disappearance. Hopefully Teritix will have no further issues if you make the final decision. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I like ALT0, but I don't object to any of the others. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ALT2 intentionally only gives part of the relevant information, encouraging the reader to visit the article to find out more. Gwillhickers: As much as you dislike the criterion, hooks are required to be 'interesting to a broad audience', not a niche, and satisfying this is just as important as the factual criteria. Additionally, just because interests vary between people doesn't mean all hooks will appeal equally overall to a general readership.
I'm giving ALT3 the , as it seems to have the broadest support. – Teratix ₵ 00:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asplenium_fontanum&oldid=1199096970"