Template talk:Did you know/Acer douglasense

Acer douglasense[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as 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 Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle}

... that the extinct Alaskan maple Acer douglasense is the type and only species for the Acer section Douglasa?

Reviewed: Trigonopterus oblongus ([1])

Created/expanded by Kevmin (talk). Self nom at 00:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alt1 ... that the early Eocene maple species Acer douglasense is the second oldest maple known from Alaska?

Please add a comment and signature (or just a signature if endorsing) after each aspect you have reviewed:

Hook

Length, format, content rules: ALT1 is ok Sharktopus ^talk 03:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source: AGF Sharktopus ^talk 03:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interest: Rather impenetrable. All of those technical words make it pretty unhooky. "section"? Could you simplify and make it punchier? Tony (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image suitability: none Sharktopus ^talk 03:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ALT hooks, if proposed:

Article

Length: Sharktopus ^talk 03:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vintage: Sharktopus ^talk 03:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing (V, RS, BLP): Only one reference for the whole article, and that one is offline. Sharktopus ^talk 03:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality: Sharktopus ^talk 03:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism/close paraphrasing: No online duplication found, agf on offline source Sharktopus ^talk 03:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyvio: No online duplication found, agf on offline source Sharktopus ^talk 03:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious faults in prose, structure, formatting: A lot of redlinks in the article. They should either be linked to real articles or else unlinked, for aesthetic reasons. Sharktopus ^talk 03:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/discussion:

alt 1 hook added on July 26, but no further discussion has happened. Is Tony1 still here?--Kev min § 05:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GTG but please clean up redlinks and if possible add another source. Sharktopus ^talk 03:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think 5 links is an exorbitant amount to be honest, but I have unlinked the geologic formations, bringing it down to two species aad a genus which are red-links. The species has only had the one paper, the type description, published. Thus additional references are not available. --Kev min § 03:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the effort. I also removed a couple of redlinks, in one case by creating a stub for Kenai Group. Sharktopus ^talk 04:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone propose an ALT here that's preferable less impenetrable? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]