Template:Did you know nominations/Iris timofejewii
- 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 ツStacey (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Iris timofejewii[edit]
- ... that Iris timofejewii is a rare and endangered iris threatened by overgrazing?
- ALT1: ... that Iris timofejewii is now listed as Vulnerable in the Red Book of Russia?
Created by DavidAnstiss (talk). Nominated by DavidAnstiss (talk) at 18:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
- Seems too close. For example, the list of province names is copied exactly from the IUCN source in the same order. - Other problems: - Needs copy editing. For example, note "species species" in the very first sentence. Other obvious errors include a year of "198", poor grammar such as "It has style branch that are as long". It generally reads poorly, due to excessive use of jargon, latin and abbreviations.
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
I'm not liking the heavy citation style which breaks up the sentences too much but suppose that's a matter of taste. It would be good if we could make the page generally more attractive to the reader. A picture would help a lot but I couldn't find one on commons myself. Andrew D. (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Have altered list of province names, into alphabetical order. Re:photo a lot of the Russian irises (sadly) do not have any photos in wikicommons, unless seen in Botanical Gardens.DavidAnstiss (talk) 17:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
New reviewer needed; the previous reviewer hasn't returned in nearly three weeks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've returned to look at it more than once but the trouble is that, while the article might still be technically ok now, I still think it looks fairly awful. But I didn't like to just grumble again though and couldn't think what to say. I'd therefore appreciate another reviewer taking a look to provide a fresh opinion. Perhaps Casliber or Cwmhiraeth could please take a look as they do lots of species articles and so may be able to suggest a constructive way forward, which I'm not seeing. Andrew D. (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- As far as I can see the article complies with DYK criteria; it is certainly amply referenced. The style and use of English is a bit stilted, but I see no reason to reject it on that account. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
