- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Iris atrofusca
edit
Iris atrofusca
ALT1: ... that Iris atrofusca is considered the darkest-flowering species of iris in Israel ?- ALT2: ... that the flowers of Iris atrofusca are so dark that in Jordan it is often called a 'black iris'?
Created/expanded by DavidAnstiss (talk). Self-nominated at 19:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC).
- QPQ:
- user only has 3 DYK connections - No (0%) copyvio found with Earwig's tool:
- The article is long enough?
- The hook is interesting? ALT1 preferred
- The article follows most other important policies?
- The hook is below 200 characters?
- The article is new or a 5-fold expansion in last7 days?
- Oh dear. The article went into Mainspace on 13th April. By 14th April it was 2,145 bytes in size. A 5-fold expansion then began on 17th April, and the DYK was self-nominated 8 days later on 25th April, when it was 20,000+ bytes. I fear it may just have over-shot the DYK timetable by one day, which is a terrible shame if the rules are applied rigorously as the editor has made a belter of a botanical article, of which there are far too few. (Maybe compose in a sandbox next time) - The hook is referenced? Whilst the hook is indeed referenced, I'm not convinced that the link to the photo website is authoritative-enough to be an acceptable source for a DYK. It looks like a citizen science page where 'anyone can post anything'. A more reliable source is probably needed, I feel (even though I can't imagine there being any flower darker than this beauty!)
- QPQ:
Overall: if the 7-day DYK rule is rigorously applied, I fear this is a NO GO, sorry. 
Parkywiki (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Not sure what you're looking at in the history, @Parkywiki:. The author moved the article to mainspace on April 25, the same day he nominated it for DYK. There is no 7-day problem here. Yoninah (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm so sorry folks - I had completely missed seeing the edit history showed that DavidAnstiss had moved the content into mainspace on 25th - I had wrongly interpreted the article's page history as showing it was all created in mainspace, and therefore had just missed the DYK criteria. Clearly I was wrong, @Yoninah:, and grateful you've pointed out the error of my DYK ways. Sorry, David. As a botanist myself, I'm delighted it makes it the article eligible. However, there is still the question of the strength of the hook's citation. It would be good to have a second opinion on this, please. Parkywiki (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Parkywiki: whenever there is a problem with a nomination, you need to ping the nominator using the line just above the editing window: {{subst:DYKproblem|Iris atrofusca|header=yes|sig=yes}} I was wondering why the nominator didn't respond to any of your points when I realize he hadn't been pinged. I just put a note on his talk page, so hopefully you'll get your answers soon. Best, Yoninah (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you all, for your positive comments. I started the article in my user space and work on various sections on my laptop at home (as have no home wi-fi !), then move the completed article to mainspace ! I then started a DKY as well, although that nearly failed, as I missed step 3 ! Re - the hook - I think I found the sentence and thought it would be a good DKY but since it is only an opinion hook, can not find any other sources to back this up. Should have thought of a different hook ! DavidAnstiss (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm so sorry folks - I had completely missed seeing the edit history showed that DavidAnstiss had moved the content into mainspace on 25th - I had wrongly interpreted the article's page history as showing it was all created in mainspace, and therefore had just missed the DYK criteria. Clearly I was wrong, @Yoninah:, and grateful you've pointed out the error of my DYK ways. Sorry, David. As a botanist myself, I'm delighted it makes it the article eligible. However, there is still the question of the strength of the hook's citation. It would be good to have a second opinion on this, please. Parkywiki (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I know what you mean, DavidAnstiss. I actually found the DYK nomination process a heck of a lot more complex to get to grips with than creating articles in the first place. Clearly I've still a lot to learn. Anyway, to make amends, I have done some research and added a slightly different hook ALT2 and struck out the others. I've edited the article to insert an authoritative source (the RBG, Jordan!). This also meant an edit to the image caption was needed to remove what would have been a confusing reference to Israel, when the hooks now relates to nearby Jordan. I now reckon this DYK is Good to go. Parkywiki (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
