Template:Did you know nominations/Iris lortetii

Add links
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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Still no response from nominator to address serious issues; closed as unsuccessful

DYK toolbox

Iris lortetii

(
)
Iris lortetii
Iris lortetii

Created by DavidAnstiss (talk). Self-nominated at 23:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC).

  • Article got shorter by almost 30% in the period before the nomination, and hasn't been made longer since then either. Nor is it new or a Good Article. Also, no QPQ. Too bad, I had a good hook about parts of the plant being toxic to its own germinated embryos. -Freekee (talk) 04:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Freekee: Just a comment. Unless I've misread the article history, this article was moved to mainspace on 7 November [[1]]]. It was nominated on 12 November so therefore it would count as "new" as it didn't exist before then. [[2]]. Cowlibob (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Damn. I didn't know that was a thing. :-( I think it would be helpful if noms mentioned that sort of thing in their nominations. I suppose I have to do a new QPQ now. -Freekee (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Freekee, as best I can tell, you only have three prior DYK credits (and quite old ones at that), which means while a review from you is always welcome, it is not required until you have five DYK credits, or the nomination would take you over five. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Full new review needed. Article was moved to mainspace on November 7, and was therefore only five days old for DYK purposes when it was nominated on November 12, which means it was definitely new enough. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • This article is new enough and long enough. The image is in the public domain, the hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and Earwig detected no copyright issues. @DavidAnstiss: You have exactly five previous DYKs and this means a QPQ needs to be done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: pings would not have gone through without a sig (adding one, though that won't cause belated pings), so repinging Cwmhiraeth and DavidAnstiss to make sure they see this (it may no longer be relevant after nearly two weeks). BlueMoonset (talk) 16:25, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, I came by to promote this and started to edit and format references to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. The article is littered with many cites within the same sentence, and the Google Books refs are not formatted correctly. As I would rather spend my time building prep sets, I stopped right before the Biochemistry section and leave it to the nominator or someone else to clean this up. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Replacing tick as the article, although annoyingly over-cited, conforms to the DYK rules on citations. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, there is a huge amount of close paraphrasing from the IUCN source, also from other sources. You must rewrite and re-phrase your source material in your own words.
  • Source: The rhizomes require a hot and dry dormancy period and the plants are sensitive to competition and shading.
  • Article: the rhizomes require a hot and dry dormancy period (after flowering) and the plants are sensitive to competition and shading.
  • Source: Unfortunately, cultivated specimens rarely survive more than two seasons, causing a continuous demand for fresh specimens.
  • Article: Unfortunately, the cultivated specimens rarely survived more than 2 seasons, causing a continuous demand for fresh plants and rhizomes.
  • Source: Once collected extensively for the cut flower industry, it was sold in bunches on the side of the road
  • Article: it was once collected extensively for the cut flower industry and it was sold in bunches on the side of the road.
  • Source: Grazing has up to now aided survival by reducing competition.
  • Article: Grazing by herbivorous mammals has up to now aided survival by reducing competition from other plants.
  • Source: heavy mining during the recent war has meant that the localities mentioned are not accessible
  • Article: heavy mining during the recent war has meant that the localities mentioned are not accessible
  • Yoninah (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
rewrote and re-phrased - those phrases. Had forgot they were not re-written DavidAnstiss (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @DavidAnstiss: thank you. But you have added a sentence fragment and sentences that need copyediting for English grammar. Yoninah (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Yoninah, I have done a copyedit on all the changes DavidAnstiss made in those recent edits, which I hope has fixed the issues you saw. I think, given the amount of close paraphrasing from before, I'm going to ask Nikkimaria to take a look at the article to be sure no other pockets are hiding, after which perhaps this will be ready to go. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Definitely still seeing instances of too-close paraphrasing here - for example "It was also collected extensively for the cut flower industry and was sold in bunches on the side of the road, plants were also moved to decorate the cemeteries in the area" vs "Once collected extensively for the cut flower industry, it was sold in bunches on the side of the road, plants were also moved to grace the cemetries of the area". Additionally, in my spotchecking I found instances where the material was not supported by the cited source - for example the claim "the cultivated specimens rarely survived more than 2 seasons, causing a continuous demand for fresh plants and rhizomes" does not appear in footnote 19. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It's been almost two weeks since the last comments here, have the close paraphrasing concerns been addressed yet? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Narutolovehinata5, as there haven't been any edits to the article since Nikkimaria made her post above, the close paraphrasing concerns remain unaddressed. I have just posted to the nominator's talk page noting that this still needs addressing. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @DavidAnstiss: Are you still planning on working on this? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The close paraphrasing issues have not been addressed in spite of pings and talk page messages. The nominator has not edited the article since December and has been unresponsive despite being active. Considering the issues, the nomination is now marked for closure as unsuccessful, although the nomination may continue if the problems are fixed before this is closed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Iris_lortetii&oldid=939844644"