A fact from Dudleya cymosa subsp. pumila appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 February 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
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.
... that the type specimen of Dudleya pumila is actually the only accurate representation of Dudleya cymosa in its range, so D.pumila became a subspecies? Source: Nakai, Kei M. (1987). “Some New and Reconsidered California Dudleya (Crassulaceae)”. Madroño. 34(4): 338–339.
Overall: Thank you for this article. A nice plant. Just a few issues. (1) I hope we can liven up the hook and find a picture - you have some good pictures in the article - what about one of those? (2) There's nothing actually wrong with the hook - I'm just not sure whether even a biologist would find the taxonomy hooky. According to the article, it grows in some great places and quite high up - could we mention that it grows in some interesting high-up location? (3) The first para in the description section needs a citation. If we can resolve the above 3 issues, this nom should be OK. Storye book (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
I don't think this article is DYK-worthy. The species it was moved to is not even monophyletic. The taxonomy for this genus is very convoluted and I don't think a layman could understand unless they read the genus page. = Toyonbro (talk) January 10, 2022
Toyonbro I highly disagree that the article isn't DYK-worthy. I do realize that you started the article, but the nomination will continue to proceed because you don't own it. SL93 (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, SL93 for sorting out the citations, picture and hook (which checks out in its article citation). I approve all of those. Good to go with ALT1. Storye book (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for this article. A nice plant. 
Thank you, SL93 for sorting out the citations, picture and hook (which checks out in its article citation). I approve all of those. Good to go with ALT1. Storye book (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)