Talk:Rosemary Margaret Smith

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that botanist Rosemary Margaret Smith defined an entire genus of the ginger family that she called Pleuranthodium after successfully identifying the physical characteristics between the plants? Source: "Several nomenclatural problems were present in this system, but its principal failing was that it only worked for the species of Malaysia. Later authors, therefore, returned to the concept of Alpinia sensu Schumann until Smith (1990) recognized a group of 22 species in New Guinea that she segregated under the generic name Pleuranthodium (K. Schum.) R.M. Sm." (The Molecular Phylogeny of Alpinia (Zingiberaceae): A Complex and Polyphyletic Genus of Gingers)
  • ALT1:... that botanist Rosemary Margaret Smith had both an entire genus and a separate species named after her for her major discoveries and classification of ginger? Source: "This new genus is named for Ms. Rosemary M. Smith formerly of the Royal Botanic Garden at Edinburgh in recognition of her great contributions to our knowledge of the taxonomy of the Zingiberaceae." (Smithatris, a New Genus of Zingiberaceae from Southeast Asia)

• Reviewed: Great Michigan Pizza Funeral

Created by Thriley (talk) and Silver seren (talk). Nominated by Silver seren (talk) at 22:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC).

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: - see below

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - The hook is rather unremarkable: nearly every taxonomist who describes a genus uses physical characteristics (at least before the genetic revolution), and the number of species within is irrelevant. Terms like "successfully " and "entire genus" read as promotional.

QPQ: Done.

Overall: New enough and long enough at just over 2,000 prose characters. A more interesting hook is needed. However my overall impression from this article is that it relies too heavily on primary sources and brief mentions, which, along with the tone, gives the subtle appearance of overselling notability and misrepresenting the significance of what may be rather routine accomplishments, i.e. telling a collective story that has not yet been told outside of Wikipedia (a form of novel synthesis that runs afoul of WP:PSTS). The statement "first person to describe the Malay Rose", albeit sourced, is at odds with the fact the species now known as Etlingera maingayi was described by Baker in 1892 and simply placed into Etlingera by Smith. What is missing are secondary sources that discuss Smith in better depth, to more firmly establish notability and assess how much due weight to give any accomplishments. This article lists things Smith did, which is not necessarily what she is known for; an obituary or other biographical source would be useful for the latter. Her IPNI listing mentions a 2005 article in Guild News, Edinburgh, which might provide better context and balance. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Animalparty: "However my overall impression from this article is that it relies too heavily on primary sources and brief mentions"

I don't understand this statement at all. There is only a single primary source from Smith in the article and then a few database record sources. But all the rest of the references are secondary sources discussing Smith's research. And several go into extreme depth or are almost entirely about Smith's research and classification efforts. Including [1], [2], [3], and [4]. Her efforts have informed the entire field of research into the ginger family. Silverseren^C 00:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I should have said primary literature (i.e. scientific papers) and brief mentions, being that most of the discussions and references of Smith in primary literature seem to be routine science, and there is little way from the current sources to assess the significance of previous work (to address the "so what?"). Taxonomists cite the relevant work of any previous researcher, from Charles Darwin to lowly grad students with 1 paper to their name. From Julius et al. 2008 we learn Smith divided Plagiostachys into two informal groups' from Nagamasu & Sakai (1996), that she divided Amomum into 5 groups. From Poulsen & Searle 2005: Smith reviewed 4 species of Scaphochlamys from Borneo. Syazana et al. 2017 briefly mention Smith's work on Zingiberaceae of Mulu National Park. Yes, and? Was she a genius? a quack? Are her classifications still relevant? Smith's previous work is verifiable, but from the primary literature references it's tough to glean meaningful context. Aside from delving into intricacies of Smith's classifications (which is of interest chiefly only to ginger taxonomists) Kress et al. 2005 seems to give the most 'in depth' summary of Smith's work with Alpinia, namely that her "elegant and intricate classification of Alpinia was an attempt to provide a modern interpretation of the complex array of species placed in this genus. Her two subgenera, 11 sections, and 12 subsections encompassed the 221 species known at that time." That's a sliver of historic context, but more is needed. Kress et al. also note that their results are incongruent with Smith's classification, but meticulous dissection of scientific papers like this is beyond the scope and purview of Wikipedia, which is why sources that explicitly state (rather than infer) the significance of Smith's work are needed. Encyclopedia articles shouldn't be checklists of accomplishments (verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion), but discussions of the significance of achievements with appropriate weight. A reliable source that clearly states "Smith made important contributions to X, especially Y and Z..." would vastly clarify what is worth including in her encyclopedia article, and why. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I very much don't agree with you on that, but i'll keep looking. It's strange though. I would have originally said that her work was extensive, but in such a specific area and time period where it was unlikely to get actual news coverage. But it feels like it's more than that. Her scientific partner for many publications, Brian Laurence Burtt, had a lengthy obituary published in the Edinburgh journal for where they both worked when he died in 2009. They even have an extensive article congratulating him on his 90th birthday in an earlier edition. But there's nothing for Rosemary. No obituary or anything, despite said journal publishing a ton of papers written by her. It honestly just feels like...a brick wall of really blatant sexism. Silverseren^C 05:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I found that there was also a genus named after her. At least her fellow scientists in the field cared about her contributions.

"This new genus is named for Ms. Rosemary M. Smith formerly of the Royal Botanic Garden at Edinburgh in recognition of her great contributions to our knowledge of the taxonomy of the Zingiberaceae"

- Smithatris, a New Genus of Zingiberaceae from Southeast Asia Silverseren^C 06:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Is this still going forward? There hasn't been any comments in a month. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not exactly sure what to do. I disagree with the reviewer. Their entire review comes down to not considering the hook interesting, but also tying that in to not supporting the article as a whole. I disagree with them entirely on the latter and the former, as these things go, is subjective. Silverseren^C 17:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Would you be willing to propose another hook instead? Even if you disagree with reviewer(s), the ultimate decision on if a nomination is approved or not (as well as what hook to use) rests with them, so if they state that the hook is unsuitable, usually that means that a different direction may be needed. Personally I would have to agree with the reviewer: the hook feels too routine, as it just says that "scientist named genus after characteristics", which is how many if not most plant genuses are named. Perhaps if there was some additional context about said characteristics in the hook, then it would have been more appropriate. In any case, maybe a different direction is needed here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 17:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I've added an alt more focused on her accomplishments/awards (in a sense) for her work. How does that one sound? Silverseren^C 18:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it sounds better, but I'm not sure if "massive" is the right word to use here. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

True, i've changed it to "major". Since I think that is quite clear in regards to the ginger family. Silverseren^C 17:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. @Animalparty: Thoughts on the new hook? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The original reviewer is active and has both pings and posts on their talk page but does not appear to be inclined to visit this nom. ALT1 addresses the only "problem" raised (which I too disagree with given some of the utterly banal hooks that pass every day). An article about ginger should not take a month and a half to come to a decision on, pass this one already! Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The original reviewer hasn't responded to inquiries, so I'll take over. Prefer ALT1 more than ALT0, but both are fine. Hooks are short enough, and I'm accepting the offline sources in good faith. New enough, long enough. Neutral and well-written. Earwig was down, so I'm assuming good faith on the copyvio check. Edge3 (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Earwig was up on my end. 3.8% for one source and 0% for all the rest, with the top source being because of the names of her publications. Silverseren^C 02:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Silver seren: Thank you! I just checked again, and Earwig is working for me now. I confirm that there are no copyvio concerns for this article. Edge3 (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Additional Sources

The International Plant Names Index lists 262 names for Smith, while this paper lists Smith as 10th with 132 names in a list of women with the most names published. I don't know enough about botany to properly word this information in her biography, but perhaps the number of names should be mentioned in the classifications section along with noting that the list is partial (at least, I think it is).

References