Jump to content

Talk:Aquilegia chaplinei

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 14:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

( Comment or view )
( Article history links:
)
Aquilegia chrysantha
Aquilegia chrysantha
  • Source: Nold, Robert (2003). Columbines: Aquilegia, Paraquilegia, and Semiaquilegia. Portland, OR: Timber Press. ISBN 0881925888.
  • ALT1: ... that the Chapline columbine is generally considered a distinct species, except in Texas, where it is considered a variety of the golden columbine (pictured)?
    • Source: Nold, Robert (2003). Columbines: Aquilegia, Paraquilegia, and Semiaquilegia. Portland, OR: Timber Press. ISBN 0881925888.
    5x expanded by Pbritti (talk). Number of QPQs required: 4. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 54 past nominations.

    Pbritti (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

    1. Examples of this plant found in Texas are classified differently than examples of it found elsewhere?
    2. Texas law gives this plant different status for in terms of habitat protections, conservation and endangered species considerations than laws elsewhere?
    3. Texas taxonomic societies have come to a unique determination regarding this plant wherever it is found?
    4. Some important Texans disagree with non-Texans regarding classification in a manner that bears weight?
    5. Something else?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


    DYK hook

    [edit]

    The supporting page says that 'The name (of the plant) proposed by Lott was not broadly accepted outside of Texas, where it is used by the Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center of the University of Texas at Austin.' This is not the same thing as saying that the plant 'is generally considered a distinct species, except in Texas, where it is considered a variety of the golden columbine', as the hook claims. The fact that a single university centre in Texas uses a name doesn't mean that all biologists in Texas obligatorily use it, or even that most do. (It makes it sound like one of these cases where different states of the US have different laws - 'XYZ is generally legal, except in Texas, where it is considered illegal' - but I don't think science works like this.) Maybe one of the cited sources does nevertheless contain a claim like that, but the fact remains that the article doesn't. This would appear to be another case of a DYK hook that is, in practice, clickbait. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    GA Review

    [edit]
    Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    GA toolbox
    Reviewing
    This review is transcluded from Talk:Aquilegia chaplinei/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

    Nominator: Pbritti (talk · contribs) 05:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments

    [edit]
    • The holotype image and the Sitting Bull Falls image that goes with it would be better placed in the 'Taxonomy' section, side by side as a specific gallery. The current image placement breaks up the story.

    Images

    [edit]
    • All images are on Commons and appear to be correctly licensed, except for the holotype image:
    • Could you confirm that the Smithsonian issues its holotype images as CC0; I haven't managed to find the page in their policies which says this. It would be helpful to place the license link on the Commons page.
    • The Guadelupe Mountain specimen image is rather like the holotype image. What function does it serve in the article?
      • When working on taking Aquilegia sibirica through GAN, the value of depicting all features of a plant was impressed upon me. I feel retaining that image is prudent because it captures undamaged root and stem structures. That said, there is some redundancy. I'll leave it to your discretion as an impartial reviewer. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it'd work much better if placed inside the Distribution section than in the Infobox. I'd suggest it and the living plant image should be in a gallery centered underneath the text to ensure they stay within the section. (Actually I'd suggest the same positioning for the two Taxonomy images). Then readers and reviewers alike can see what the images are doing for the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources

    [edit]
    • All the sources are of good quality and relevant to the subject.
    • Spot-checks: [4], [9], [12], [16] ok

    Summary

    [edit]

    Driveby comment

    [edit]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
    Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aquilegia_chaplinei&oldid=1270697951"