- 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 SL93 (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Solorina crocea
.jpg)
- ... that the orange chocolate chip lichen (pictured) has a distinctive colour scheme? Source: the "distinctive" seems to be in Geiser, Linda; McCune, Bruce (1997). Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest (2nd ed.); but although it's only available offline, that claim seems pretty solid if you look at the picture
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Mahurangi Harbour
- Comment: Open to improvements to the hook, I don't know how to make it "hookier".
Improved to Good Article status by Esculenta (talk). Nominated by LordPeterII (talk) at 21:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC).
@Esculenta and LordPeterII: I think the plant's name by itself is hooky, but the current hook is too vague. If you can find a source about the origin of the "orange chocolate chip" name, maybe that could work as a hook? It could even complement the image well, since the current image doesn't show the "distinctive colour scheme" well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, I was intrigued by the venacular name, but the article does not explain how it got that much. Since sadly, page 655 of the relevant source is omitted on Google books, I would have to rely on @Esculenta to hopefully have access to that source. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response Peter. I guess I'll wait for Esculenta to respond here before continuing the review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- @LordPeterII: as the nominator, I'd argue that you'd be the one responsible for pushing the nomination towards the finish line – I'd consider it to be unfair to hinge the nomination on Esculenta doing work they never signed up for. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: The issue here is that it is Esculenta that has access to the article's sources and not Peter. In theory perhaps another source could be found, but Esculenta is the subject expert in this case and thus may have better access to relevant material. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: such is the hazard of drive-by nominations; it is the nominator's responsibility to familiarize themselves with the article's sourcing and content should a problem arise. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: It is true, it's primarily my responsibility. I'll try searching some more, but unless I can find the requested info, I'll have to think of another hook or let this nom go. Will report back. –LordPeterII (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Actually, I just found it: It's in https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2012.01425.x and now also in the article:
the "chocolate chip" name refers to the large brownish fruitbodies (ascomata), which have an appearance similar to chocolate
(article wording). Thus I propose- ALT1 ... that the orange chocolate chip lichen (pictured) was given its common name because of its fruitbodies, which look like chocolate?
- Is that better? I could find nothing about the taste by the way, but must assume that the similarity ends there. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- That's a great hook and I think it complements the image well! I could wait a few more days to hear Esculenta's thoughts but otherwise I can do a full review soon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Actually, I just found it: It's in https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2012.01425.x and now also in the article:
- @Theleekycauldron: It is true, it's primarily my responsibility. I'll try searching some more, but unless I can find the requested info, I'll have to think of another hook or let this nom go. Will report back. –LordPeterII (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: such is the hazard of drive-by nominations; it is the nominator's responsibility to familiarize themselves with the article's sourcing and content should a problem arise. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:22, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Theleekycauldron: The issue here is that it is Esculenta that has access to the article's sources and not Peter. In theory perhaps another source could be found, but Esculenta is the subject expert in this case and thus may have better access to relevant material. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
- @LordPeterII: as the nominator, I'd argue that you'd be the one responsible for pushing the nomination towards the finish line – I'd consider it to be unfair to hinge the nomination on Esculenta doing work they never signed up for. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response Peter. I guess I'll wait for Esculenta to respond here before continuing the review. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Since Esculenta hasn't responded, I'll be finishing the review now. The article was nominated for DYK one week after it was promoted to GA status so it just barely made it. All parts of the article are cited properly, including the hook. The hook is cited inline and I was able to verify it in the source. The image is suitable and complements the hooks very well. A QPQ has been provided. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
