Talk:Rafflesia lawangensis

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 Theleekycauldron (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Rafflesia lawangensis was previously misidentified as Rafflesia arnoldii, only to be identified as a new species in 2005 after photographs of it were sent to the National University of Malaysia? Source: "Until 2005, when Ms. Ewa Kamila Grzelczak took a photograph of a bizarre blooming Rafflesia from Bukit Lawang and sent it to Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia. After long discussions, reviews of the existing information of all known Rafflesias and identification of specimens, we came to the conclusion that this was neither R. arnoldi nor R. atjehensis, but a new species to science, which is described here." Salleh, K.; Mahyuni, R.; Susatya, A.; Veldkamp, J. (2010). "RAFFLESIA LAWANGENSIS (RAFFLESIACEAE), A NEW SPECIES FROM BUKIT LAWANG, GUNUNG LEUSER NATIONAL PARK, NORTH SUMATRA, INDONESIA". Reinwardtia. 13 (2): 159–165. doi:10.14203/REINWARDTIA.V13I2.2136
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Shushma Datt
  • Comment: The "Rafflesia atjehensis" the article refers to was later subsumed as "Rafflesia arnoldii var. atjehensis" before any concerns are raised on that issue. The PDF of the article is freely available for download just to make things easier for the review. Thank you in advance to the reviewer, this is my second and last Rafflesia article of the day!

Created by Ornithoptera (talk). Self-nominated at 03:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC).

• Starting review--Kevmin § 15:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Article new enough and long enough. Article is cited and sources, with the hook verified to the sources. Can we get a little more clarity/information on how the warts and spots are different from the other species? The sentance as it is feels like a fragment lacking completion. Also apologies for the delay in the review.--Kevmin § 20:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ornithoptera:, any thoughts.--Kevmin § 18:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

As I have not heard anything from @Ornithoptera:, I will give this one more week and then decline the nom.--Kevmin § 18:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Kevmin, I can't find anything about in what way the warts/spots are visually different, but I added a small detail about their distribution on the plant (distinctively missing on this species on some parts), and made the sentence end less like a fragment. Urve (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Article new enough and long enough. Article is cited and sources, with the hook verified to the sources. no policy issues identified with the article needs addressed by Urve. Looks good to go.--Kevmin § 18:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)