Talk:Pedicularis groenlandica

Scrophulariaceae

Is there any point to changing the family of Pedicularis to Scrophulariaceae in just one species article?[1] It is Orobanchaceae in the other articles. Mention is made of the change in Scrophulariaceae. I don't object to the change for all Pedicularis and a comment in Pedicularis and Orobanchaceae seems warranted, either way, but a reader may find the inconsistency troubling. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the edit I questioned above. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Major revision

In light of the major revision I have removed the stub status from the talk page. I am going to submit this for DYK as it currently stands, but I also plant to do more editing in the next two weeks. They should be less extreme, but I estimate I can add another 5,000 bytes and 9 good sources. Additional eyes and opinions welcome. 18:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I've decided to assess this article myself at "B". If I should not assess my own revision, please let me know. I think we're substantially complete. Has a map, illustration, a variety of photos, fairly standard structure for a plant article. It still needs work to get to good article status and substantial work on grammar, some minor spelling errors I have yet to catch, etc. I think the number of reference could easily double to get this to Good Article status. @Walter Siegmund @Eucalyptusmint, @IceCreamAntisocial you are the other top editors. Anything you'd like to see me work on here? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a great start, thank you for substantially improving the article. It looks like it has most of the major sections per the plants taxon template so I can't think of anything additional that it's missing. I also don't think it's an issue to individually change the assessment of the article, as long as it's not being assigned anything higher than a B per WP:ASSESS. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback @Eucalyptusmint. As good as I am getting at Wiki stuff I seem to learn something new about it every week. Another couple of years and I might actually stop feeling like an imposter. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 12:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Pedicularis groenlandica in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, NM

• ... that the widespread flower little pink elephant (pictured) well known for the striking resemblance of an elephant's head is a parasitic plant that is dependent on its hosts and will fade and die without them? Source:
  • ALT1: ... that the North American flower little pink elephant (pictured) well known for the striking resemblance of an elephant's head is a parasitic plant that is dependent on its hosts? Source:
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Should I always put in a reference for the common name I use in a DYK hook? I did this time but if that is excessive referencing I would like to know. Gave one variation on the same hook in this nomination. Edit to add: I am also wondering if I should have picked the line drawing as the picture nomination. It might look better, can/should I change it out for Pedicularis groenlandica illustration.png ?

Created by MtBotany (talk). Self-nominated at 17:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Pedicularis groenlandica; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems: - Definitely some commas needed in these hooks, IMO. Also, if it is included, I think "striking" should be in quotes as it is the opinion of the author in your source, rather than an uncontested fact. Thirdly, I think you can lose the last few words, as that's kind of the definition of a parasite. I will suggest an ALT below.

Image eligibility:

• Freely licensed:
• Used in article:
• Clear at 100px: - I find the image difficult to make out at this small size due to the busy background. I think a cropped version of this photo from the article would work better because of the shallow depth-of-field. The illustration you suggested would be OK too, but I think a colour photo is preferable.

QPQ: None required.

Overall: A nice article. Nothing majorly wrong with the DYK nomination, just a few things above to tidy up please. BigDom (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• @MtBotany: As promised above, here is an alternative (less wordy) hook:

Little pink elephant (Pedicularis groenlandica)

• ALT2 ... that the flower little pink elephant (pictured), known for its "striking" resemblance to an elephant's head, is a parasitic plant?

• Let me know what you think. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the pointers @BigDom. I like the alternate wording, it is a good edit. I just fixed the paragraph problem at the end of the name section while I was doing yet another addition of sources to the article. I do have a reference for striking, but the quote was "remarkably resemble" in Flora of North America. If you think it is unencylopidic to use a synonym let us use the exact words. This is my third go round on DYK, I got one previously for Delphinium geyeri and have a nomination I need to revisit for Wyethia amplexicaulis and I'm starting to try to participate in checks and so on here. Watching how other people do good replies and suggestions, etc. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clarifying the number of DYKs and good work to say you've only done a couple before! I've marked this as "None required" now above.
    • The word "striking" is used in the book you referenced above, Mountain wildflowers of Northern New Mexico, so I've no problem with using it in quotes. I've also referenced it in the article for consistency.
    • If you're happy with my alternative hook and my citing of "striking", I will mark this as needing a second opinion to avoid marking my own homework, as they say. Hopefully someone will be along soon to sign this off.
    • Please could a second reviewer have a look at ALT2? Thanks, BigDom (talk) 07:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
      • I'm completely happy with the edit and the small version of the photo. I'm a good editor in my narrow field and I'm not always a great judge about what is or is not a good wording when I am very close to a subject. As I get more into DYK I'm going to be very good at the technical side of evaluating evidence, but not so great at spotting errors in the hooks. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
      • I'd like to propose an alternate hook, and would also be happy to provide a second opinion if still needed. From my experience, readers are not wont to click on plant articles. I think that something bizarre but very simple would be best here, perhaps ALT3: "...that little pink elephants are parasitic?" Fritzmann (message me) 20:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
        • Initially I did not like it because it did not make it clear that it is a plant, but the more I think about it the more I like it. A very good suggestion and let the record show this is my preferred hook now. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Fivefold expansion completed on 3 Oct, submitted at DYK on 7 Oct, with additional expansion continuing until 14 October. Article is long enough (Expanded from 1470 to 10185 char at time of original DYK submission, well in excess of the 7350 threshold. Article is currently 11821 char post-submission). Article is well-sourced, neutral, and copyvio-free. Hook(s) are cited and interesting. Images are freely licensed; QPQ is not needed. I made a number of copyedits. I would ask that editors/nominators/primary contributors review my work closely and fix any issues I may have inadvertently introduced. I prefer ALT3 as the obvious, best choice, along with the cropped version of the second image, if at all possible. Good work. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your edits and work to make the article better. I'm a pretty good researcher, but my prose is not the greatest. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

References