Talk:Celmisia major

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 SL93 (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Celmisia major var. major

• ... that the two varieties of Celmisia major are "certainly not close" to one another? Source: "The status of C. major var. brevis, an Mt Egmont endemic is not clear, it is certainly not close to var. major." de Lange, P.J. (1 February 2009). "Celmisia major var. major". New Zealand Plant Conservation Network.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Eoseira
  • Comment: This plant is a bit of an unaddressed taxonomic oddity, with two varieties that may be split somewhat soon, when someone spends the time to look into it. In the meantime, the article is split so that information on both variations are addressed. Thank you in advance to the reviewer!

Created by Ornithoptera (talk). Self-nominated at 01:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article created on 27 April, and is well beyond the required minimum length. All sources are, as far as I can tell, reliable. Earwig reveals no copyvio and I didn't find any instances of unacceptably WP:Close paraphrasing. There are no obvious neutrality issues. QPQ has been done. The hook is decent in terms of presenting an interesting fact, but it does not quite succeed in doing so in an interesting way.

Some copyediting is however needed before this is ready for the WP:Main page. This is outside of my area of expertise, but I think "variation"/"variant" should be "variety" (and link to Variety (botany) instead of Variation (biology) in the WP:LEAD). The link to daisy (a disambiguation page) should probably be to Asteraceae instead. Celmisia major var. brevis can be differentiated by var. major by its smaller size and its more open and weakly developed pseudo-involucre, var. brevis is also range restricted on Mount Taranaki. – the first "by" should be "from", and this should be two separate sentences (the comma should be a period—this is a recurring issue in the article, in fact). grass like should be "grass-like" with a hyphen. A short lived plant it is described as [...] seems to be missing a hyphen and a comma. between the months of October to May – "between" is always followed by "and", never by "to". Invasive species is a term with a specific meaning, and should not be used when the source only says "taller and faster growing weeds". restriced is of course a typo. Kelmis, whose name meant "casting" was a friend of Zeus, and was a blacksmith – this sentence is structured rather awkwardly (there needs to be a comma after "casting", but that makes for a whole lot of commas in a rather brief sentence). he had transformed Kelmis into Adamant – either "he transformed Kelmis" or "he had Kelmis transformed", and "Adamant" should not be capitalized. The specific epithet means "greater" in Latin. While "brevis" means "short" in Latin. – the first sentence needs to specify that it is the specific epithet "major" that means this, and these sentences should be merged.

Since I'm not too familiar with the terminology, I'll have to spend some time taking a closer look at the descriptions to see that they match the ones in the sources; I'll do this once the copyediting has been taken care of. TompaDompa (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Hello @TompaDompa:! Thank you so much for taking the time to read through the article. I don't know how so many issues had slipped through, but thank you so much for taking the time to correct any glaring concerns. I have done the requested copyediting and I hope it suffices! I apologize for the late reply, my computer broke down a couple days ago and I couldn't respond sooner. Ornithoptera (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Ornithoptera: The typo restriced remains, as do several instances of "variant(s)" or "variation(s)" that should be "variety"/"varieties".
    As for the descriptions: is branched root system really the same as "multicipital stock"? I am as I said not overly familiar with the terminology, but I thought "stock" meant "stem"? ("Multicipital" of course literally means "many-headed", which I suppose is basically the same thing as branched.) Where does grass-like come from? I don't think narrow and long, lance shaped is equivalent to the source's "narrow-linear to lanceolate", as the latter describes a range of shapes of which lance-shaped (which should have a hyphen) is only one possible shape while the former implies that they are always lance-shaped. Similarly, I don't think The flower stem is also hairy is equivalent to the source's "scape [...] pellicled to floccose"—and I'll note that for var. brevis, you rendered "Scape [...] pellicled to subfloccose" as The scape, or the flower stem, ranges from hairy to smooth, so why render "pellicled to floccose" as just hairy for var. major?
    The hook needs to be rephrased to be more interesting. The crux of the issue seems to be that (according to de Lange at least, though I have found no indication that this is a controversial opinion) they are not closely related. It is not clear from the current proposed hook that this is the sense in which they are "certainly not close". We are a bit limited in how we can phrase it, because I don't think we can put it in unequivocal WP:WikiVoice and obviously we must not go beyond what the source actually says, but I'm sure you'll think of something that will do the trick. TompaDompa (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    • @TompaDompa: I did all of the suggested edits, but I am unsure what you would like me to change about the hook. I implore you to suggest an alternative hook since I am unsure by what you would like to see. I would also appreciate a review of the image if it passes the guidelines as well. I wish nothing but the best. Ornithoptera (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
      • Right, I completely overlooked the picture (probably missed it because the hook has no "(pictured)" or similar in it). The image is policy-compliant, but I don't know if it really adds much to the DYK entry so I think it can be left off if there are too many approved hooks with images; I would suggest the text "(var. major pictured)" if it is included. The copyediting that has been done is satisfactory.
        For the hook, adding something clarifying that they are "certainly not close" in the sense of not being closely related to the end should do the trick. "Phylogenetically" ([...] "certainly not close" to one another phylogenetically?) is of course what de Lange means, but that word probably doesn't mean anything to the vast majority of people who would read the hook and so doesn't make the hook interesting. "Genetically" gives the incorrect impression that genetic studies have confirmed that they aren't closely related. "Taxonomically" is strictly speaking incorrect (they are close in the current taxonomy but shouldn't be) and also has the issue of likely not enticing many readers for reasons of being somewhat opaque to laypeople. "Relatedness-wise" is inappropriately informal. I'm afraid I can't think of a good way to phrase it right at this moment. TompaDompa (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
        • @TompaDompa: Not sure on how I would personally word it. Perhaps, I could say something like "certainly not close in relation to one another"? I'll run it by you before proposing the althook. Other than that the potential inclusion of "phylogenetically" might not be meaningless but it might provoke some interest in those who aren't sure as to what it is, so that could still be a potential draw perhaps? Ornithoptera (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
          • Using some variation of "related"/"relation"/"relative" is probably the best way to phrase it. Perhaps [...] "certainly not close" relatives? or something like that? Or [...] "certainly not close" relatives?, perhaps? If we didn't need to quote de Lange (which we do, since we can't put his assessment in WP:WikiVoice), I would suggest [...] not closely related?. Although now that I think about it, ... that according to Peter James de Lange, the two varieties of Celmisia major are not closely related? could also work. If any other editor here has an opinion on about our best option here, whether it be quotation marks or WP:INTEXT attribution, I would welcome further input. I'm leaning towards WP:INTEXT attribution. The two could also be combined: ... that according to Peter James de Lange, the two varieties of Celmisia major are "certainly not" closely related? Actually, I think we could even just say ... that the two varieties of Celmisia major are "certainly not" closely related? without the WP:INTEXT attribution, since the quotation marks make it clear that we're quoting someone (thus avoiding WP:WikiVoice issues) and this would to my eye accurately reflect what de Lange says. TompaDompa (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
            • Let's just go with this then, thank you for your help with this @TompaDompa:: Ornithoptera (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
            • ALT1 ... that the two varieties of Celmisia major are "certainly not" closely related?
              • ALT1 ready. As noted above, the hook should say "(var. major pictured)" directly following the bolded text if the image is included. TompaDompa (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)