Talk:Phytelephas tenuicaulis
Latest comment: 2 years ago by BlueMoonset in topic Did you know nomination
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Did you know nomination
edit- 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) 21:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Issues still not addressed; closing as unsuccessful
( )
- ... that Phytelephas tenuicaulis, a species of palm native to South America, is a source of vegetable ivory? Source: Merwin Conservancy
5x expanded by Thriley (talk) and Cgd17 (talk). Nominated by Thriley (talk) at 19:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC).
- Starting review--Kevmin § 22:39, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Cgd17 Article expansion new enough and long enough. The phylogeny section-paragraph 1 is all from source 5? It currently does not match the source well and should be copyedited to reflect the source more accurately. The source is on the phylogeny of the palm tribe Phytelepheae, but the article presents the subject as the genus Phytelephas only which is incorrect.--Kevmin § 22:51, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Despite messages and pings, the nominator has not edited the article since April 12th. The nominator has also not responded to the last ping. The nomination is now marked for closure, although it may continue if the remaining issues are addressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
- I am sorry. I haven’t had the time to fix this one. It looks like Cgd17 hasn’t returned to edit since making the edits for this article. Thriley (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Phylogeny section
editBoth the first and second paragraphs of the "Phylogeny" section could use clean up. The first one is conflating the tribe level information from the source with genus level information as presented in the article here. The second paragraph is very generalized, the source discusses the specific mountain building events and valley formation events leading to the vicariant speciation of P.tenuicaulis.--Kevmin § 23:34, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- I see the issue. I should have looked more closely at the article. I’ll try to improve in the coming days. Thriley (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)