Talk:Wyethia amplexicaulis

General clean up and further research

I think I have all easily located basics into the article. Where I think it is thin right now is that there may be more information about animal utilization. Also, help with better wording is appreciated. Thanks, 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@MtBotany:, there's more information about human utilization: [1]. Plantdrew (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Plantdrew I always hesitate when I see the words, "traditional medicine". Or when I simultaneously see "Infusion or decoction of pulverized root taken as an emetic" and another entry "Root heated, fermented and eaten." I had come across some of that information and was waiting to see if I found more specific information about how heated/fermented before I put in any information about eating it. And I never put in information when it is vague about which people did so. "Montana Indian Food" won't cut it with me. The Shoshoni emetic information seems safe. Most people are not looking for those and it is not as serious like with something like measles where people ought to see a doctor and not rely on "Prof. Hones T. Natural Herbs". 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@MtBotany:, I think "traditional medicine" is pretty important to include when that is the key context to other facts about a plant, such as why it has a particular common name (e.g. "wormwood"), a major range expansion due to human dispersal (Acorus calamus), or is threatened by overharvesting (Panax quinquefolius). It is important to phrase things carefully to avoid making statements that imply medical efficacy that's not supported by WP:MEDRS. Phrasing is easier when not listing every condition a plant may have been traditionally used to treat. The Native American Ethnobotany Database isn't "Prof. Hones T. Natural Herbs", although it does have a tendency to boil lengthy descriptions of uses down to a single formulaic sentence (or conversely to take a single sentence in a source that mentions two uses in passing, and split that into separate records for each use). Each use in NAEB is sourced, and a good number of those sources are available in full online (being old enough to be out of copyright, or public domain government publications). Plantdrew (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Plantdrew Thanks for your points. I will take some time to review the original sources listed in the database, but I'm going to be away from my computer for a few weeks. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

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 PrimalMustelid talk 01:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Field of Wyethia amplexicaulis in bloom

• ... that the scenic fields of northern wyethia found in the western United States are sometimes a sign that an area has been overgrazed? Source:
  • ALT1: ... that though northern mule ears is a modest sized wildflower its taproot can reach 1.8 meters (6 feet) into the ground? Source:
  • ALT2: ... that the scenic fields of northern mule ears found in the western United States are sometimes a sign that an area has been overgrazed? Source:
  • Reviewed:

Created by MtBotany (talk). Self-nominated at 18:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Wyethia amplexicaulis; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• I will review this within a day. Cessaune [talk] 02:50, 30 August 2023 (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: Everything is good, but I don't think that the addition of both the generic and scientific name is neccessary, and it creates unnecessary clutter/adds length. The same thing could be accomplished by simply dropping the scientific name entirely. Also, I would only recommend that the image be used if the main nom goes through and not ALT1. Cessaune [talk] 02:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@MtBotany: Please address Cessaune's review above. Z1720 (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cessaune: Changed to put in just the common name, but used the common name "northern weythia" for the main hook. Put in "northern mule ears" as ALT2. Which of the three do you think is most catchy? Thanks for the ping Z1720, I had let this one slide when I went on vacation. I had an amazing time (four weeks in Berlin), but some projects did rather slip through my hands. Thanks for patience and help from everyone. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I like the main one. Cessaune [talk] 15:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cessaune: Are you ready to approve this? If so, please add the green tick. If not, please list your concerns below. Z1720 (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Cessaune [talk] 21:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

References