blackwiki - User contributions [en]

Template:Did you know nominations/Geology of North America

2013-06-01T15:19:46Z

198.228.216.170:

{{DYKsubpage
|monthyear=April 2013
|passed=
|2=
{{DYKC}}
====Geology of North America====
{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Geology of North America|Geology of North America}}

{{*mp}}... that the '''[[Geology of North America|North American continent]]''' has one shield but many orogens?

:{{*mp}}
:{{*mp}} ''Comment'': Hook not directly sourced, but in context of all the sources used. It is a broad overview article which deserves a broad hook. But I'm open for suggestions :)
Created by [[User:Al Climbs|Al Climbs]] ([[User talk:Al Climbs|talk]]). Nominated by [[User:Tobias1984|Tobias1984]] ([[User talk:Tobias1984|talk]]) at 06:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC).


:* 
*The hook is not only "not directly sourced," it's not included in the article. It is contradicted by a caption, also. "The Canadian Shield can be seen on a map showing only metamorphic rocks. The shield is the large brown area in the northeast of the continent. A similar structure can also be seen with different rock types." A structure similar to a shield, or a similar structure, meaning another shield? This article has many other problems. However, if the hook is not only "not directly sourced," but does not appear anywhere in the article, that is a big front-page no no. The paragraph about the Canadian shield is also difficult to follow, and the title headings are confusing in this area. -[[Special:Contributions/68.107.137.178|68.107.137.178]] ([[User talk:68.107.137.178|talk]]) 10:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
:*Thank you for taking the time to review the article. The caption didn't contradict the hook, but was was a little too much jargon on my behalf. I reworded it. How does the hook "DYK that the Canadian Shield is the largest outcrop of metamorphic rocks on the North American continent" sound? I'm still going to look through the headlines and see if they are coherent. --[[User:Tobias1984|Tobias1984]] ([[User talk:Tobias1984|talk]]) 11:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
::*I can't find that in the article, can you link to the appropriate section? -[[Special:Contributions/68.107.137.178|68.107.137.178]] ([[User talk:68.107.137.178|talk]]) 23:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

There is some strange original research in this article; it does not belong on the main page. -[[Special:Contributions/68.107.137.178|68.107.137.178]] ([[User talk:68.107.137.178|talk]]) 04:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
:If you can't point out the sentences, then it is probably not a valid criticism of this article. --[[User:Tobias1984|Tobias1984]] ([[User talk:Tobias1984|talk]]) 21:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
::I have pointed out specifics, you just say I didn't instead of addressing them. Another editor just reverts. Article improvement sure isn't wanted, just a score! And I though it was an encyclopedia, not a playground. -[[Special:Contributions/198.228.216.153|198.228.216.153]] ([[User talk:198.228.216.153|talk]]) 07:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
:::I am sorry, but I don't know where you pointed out a specific list of sentences that you think are OR. Can you post them here? --[[User:Tobias1984|Tobias1984]] ([[User talk:Tobias1984|talk]]) 07:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
::::I am sorry, but I don't know where I said I pointed out a specific list of sentences that I think are OR. Can you post my comment here? This article is badly written, disorganized, confusing, contradictory, and it's owned by editors who are currently running random googlesearches to try to figure out an outline as they use a book they don't have and an obscure and unavailable book in German as the recommended reading for the article. It should not go on the main page. Wikipedia discredits itself too easily with bad articles on the main page, I template them, then someone gets irritated that an article with a template is on the main page, so I get told to work on them before they go on the main page, but DYK editors only welcome rubber stamps. ''I'' am far more irritated when bad science is paraded on the main page than anyone should be irritated that the bad science is pointed out to the world--it's better to spread it? So, Tobias, continue shooting the messengers. Not much I can do to stop that, when people with knowledge in specific areas are held in such deep disdain by people who are capable of doing multiple google searches and distilling that information into articles. Google away -[[Special:Contributions/68.107.137.178|68.107.137.178]] ([[User talk:68.107.137.178|talk]]) 08:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::Are you actually reading the things you are writing here? You are criticizing everything about the article, but you can't point out a single section that needs improvement? The article has 42 sources and your accusing the author of "running random google searches"? Your calling a book "obscure" just because it is written in a language that you can't read? I nominated this lemma, because the author put a lot of work into it. It is simply unjust of you to write such accusations out of the safety of anonymity. And it seems you are doing everything out of spite: [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_100#Participating_in_DYK]]. --[[User:Tobias1984|Tobias1984]] ([[User talk:Tobias1984|talk]]) 16:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I point out plenty, but you cannot respond so you simply accuse. Who says I can't read German? What does my reading German or not have to do with anything? Oh, personal issue, removes topic from conversation, namely the bad article with Hawaii on North American Plate, craton section that does not say what craton is, etc., and changes topic to me. Who says it is obscure because it is in German? What is it about, anyway, why is its availability so limited, yet with hundreds of texts in English you pick low availability, obscure, German language text? Oh, wait, find something else about me instead of answering, because you have no answers to why this and the [[Geology of the United States]] place Hawaii on the North American Plate, describe geological history of the continent from a Cordillera without trend to the Canadian Shield, and then on to other places. So, let's discuss what other languages do I not speak? The article is bad and should be removed from article space since you are more interested in what languages I read than in putting Hawaii on the correct plate. It should certainly not be on the main page, the damage by spreading this all over the web via Wikipedia mirrors is bad enough already. -[[Special:Contributions/198.228.216.151|198.228.216.151]] ([[User talk:198.228.216.151|talk]]) 00:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
:Your not actually pointing out anything. You are just calling the text bad and the sources bad. I am really not out to insult you, but I really need you to be specific. What is wrong with the Canadian Shield section? --[[User:Tobias1984|Tobias1984]] ([[User talk:Tobias1984|talk]]) 07:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
::As long as you keep insisting that Hawaii on North American Plate isn't anything there is no way that I can point out anything geological to you. You are unwilling to consider real geology, so there is no reason to read or respond to you. -[[Special:Contributions/198.228.216.175|198.228.216.175]] ([[User talk:198.228.216.175|talk]]) 13:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
:::The word "hawaii" isn't even mentioned in the article. What lemma are you looking at? This is the DYK for [[Geology of North America]]. Why are you even reviewing lemmas without reading them? --[[User:Tobias1984|Tobias1984]] ([[User talk:Tobias1984|talk]]) 14:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

With the rampant Randy in Boise time waste it does not seem likely this article will have sufficient quality edits to improve it for the main page. -[[Special:Contributions/198.228.216.175|198.228.216.175]] ([[User talk:198.228.216.175|talk]]) 14:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
:Please point out a section that needs improvement. I will gladly review the sources and try to clarify it. I'm just glad we solved that "hawaii-mystery". --[[User:Tobias1984|Tobias1984]] ([[User talk:Tobias1984|talk]]) 14:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
::Sorry, Randy, burn out from the game playing, you know. -[[Special:Contributions/198.228.216.175|198.228.216.175]] ([[User talk:198.228.216.175|talk]]) 15:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
:::Well either you review the article or you don't, but I will defend the hard work [[User:Al_Climbs]] hat put into this article from unjust accusations and untruths. --[[User:Tobias1984|Tobias1984]] ([[User talk:Tobias1984|talk]]) 15:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
*[[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]] While this looks to be a generally well-written and well referenced article, I have a few concerns. As the original review, way up there, comments, the hook is not appropriately referenced inline in the article, and in fact, I can't even find a direct mention of it. The hook doesn't make any grammatical sense to me, ,but that might just be a lack of understanding of geology holding me back, I'm unsure. The first paragraph of the "American Cordillera" section in unreferenced, contrary to DYK guidelines. The date of creation (move from userspace) and length both check out fine. At this time, no checks for copyvio or close para-phrasing have been carried out. '''[[User:Harrias|Harrias]]''' [[User_talk:Harrias|talk]] 15:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
*[[File:Symlbol delete vote.svg|16px]] The original hook makes no sense to me. The revised text is too wordy. The article is a battleground and does not appear ready for exposure on the main page. — [[User:Alarob|ℜob C.]] ''alias'' [[User_talk:Alarob|'''ÀLAROB''']] 23:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
:* [[File:Symbol redirect vote 4.svg|16px]] Article has calmed down, although I agree we need a new hook. — [[User:Crisco 1492|Crisco 1492]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 00:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
::*It has calmed down to a general agreement that a rewrite is needed. I think the hook just suffered a typo. -[[Special:Contributions/166.137.209.150|166.137.209.150]] ([[User talk:166.137.209.150|talk]]) 01:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] Copyvio check now done and ok. I think we should pretty much ignore the complaining from the IPs (as far as I can tell, all the same individual) which is mostly of the "article is rubbish" or "use better sources" variety. And [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Geology_of_North_America&diff=553966545&oldid=553964510 this edit] which changed the hook into something not making grammatical sense is just pure disruption. Especially as it was combined with the distraction of throwing an insult ([[WP:RANDY]]) at another editor leading to it escaping detection and several subsequent editors failing the nom on the basis of the corrupted hook. Where specific actionable points have been raised, they seem to have been happily dealt with by the article editors. This article might well do with improving, it might well be far from perfect, but in my view it is perfectly adequate for DYK standards. '''[[User:Spinningspark|Spinning]][[User talk:Spinningspark|Spark''']]''' 14:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
:Thank you for your review! Could you think of a better hook? I'm also not to happy about it, but all my ideas are either too broad or too technical. You might have more experience what people would like to see on the front page. --[[User:Tobias1984|Tobias1984]] ([[User talk:Tobias1984|talk]]) 15:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
:My, how unnice, another IP hater, but there is a place to discuss IP editors, and, until you change Wikipedia policy, IP editor comments are part of Wikipedia. The typo was an accident, as I use the mobile interface for most edits. Randy from Boise comments are warranted due to the misinformation, factual inaccuracy and apparent pack of understanding of geology within the article coupled with strange use of jargon unexplained to lay readers, such as using shield for craton, but calling the section "craton," then never using or explaining the word. Editors have agreed with me about the problems with the article, as the discussions show, so, it is hard to know what to do with your insults coupled with the urge to put a seriously problematic article on the main page. Without the personal attacks there would he room for discussion, but you want none, so I will just template the problems. -[[Special:Contributions/198.228.216.149|198.228.216.149]] ([[User talk:198.228.216.149|talk]]) 16:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
:The admin complaining about IP editors has readily found one major error. One of the article editors says Greenland was omitted due to not being on the map. I did not see this discussion, but Greenland is clearly indicated by the outline source agrees upon, DNAG. But the article has multiple major problems, such as indicating Iceland is on the North American continent, partly accurate, but very misleading. The article requires a complete geological review that will do everything necessary. Yes, Hawaii was moved back to its plate, but getting just a few major errors corrected is a huge job. I hate to see bad science featured on Wikipedia. This article contains bad geology. It needs a technical review, not a push through. -[[Special:Contributions/198.228.216.166|198.228.216.166]] ([[User talk:198.228.216.166|talk]]) 17:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
::I do not hate IPs, I would have made the same comments if you were a registered user. If you want to discuss my attitude to IPs then come to my talk page, this is not an appropriate place. As far as I can see, your specific complaints are old news and have already been addressed. '''[[User:Spinningspark|Spinning]][[User talk:Spinningspark|Spark''']]''' 18:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
:::Right, after all, what is a little original research redefining a continent when it comes to moving along a DYK? I changed my mind, as you pointed out one of the more egregious errors that cause me to reevaluate how many more there are. If you don't hate IPs and don't want to discuss it here, don't emphasize it as an issue. -[[Special:Contributions/198.228.216.23|198.228.216.23]] ([[User talk:198.228.216.23|talk]]) 21:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

[[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]] Are you sure this needs another review? Since approval, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geology_of_North_America&diff=557282934&oldid=557015207 there have been major edits], like removal of image and tagging one section as "confusing" to readers. Also, someone else [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geology_of_North_America&oldid=557242595 in talk page] found some info on the topic not entirely accurate. Whether these edits are disruptive or not, and whether the addressed issues are true or IP's attempts to be an attention-whore, I can't accept this nomination yet until matters are resolved. --[[User:George Ho|George Ho]] ([[User talk:George Ho|talk]]) 14:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
::The sooner this DYK closes the better. Instead of giving a new editor a chance to present his work of many weeks to a broader audience this has turned into vile smear campaign by a single IP-hopper (Why are IPs even allowed to vote in this?). The biggest critic of this article hasn't made a single referenced edit to the article and vandalized the talk page ([[Talk:Geology_of_North_America#Googlers_1.2C_Geologists_0.2C_the_usual_round_score]]). Needless to say I am retiring from nominating anything for DYK anymore. --[[User:Tobias1984|Tobias1984]] ([[User talk:Tobias1984|talk]]) 15:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
:::So many personal attacks. Yet the main page and wikipedia are not showcases for hard work. This is still an encyclopedia, and the main page and DYK showcase the usual encyclopedic work: accurate, well-written, informative. This article is not. -[[Special:Contributions/198.228.216.145|198.228.216.145]] ([[User talk:198.228.216.145|talk]]) 12:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

:::: The article is easily of DYK quality and its other issues are fixable. It either needs a new hook, as this one is neither in the article nor cited, or the hook needs to be placed in the article and properly cited. [[User:Chiswick Chap|Chiswick Chap]] ([[User talk:Chiswick Chap|talk]]) 14:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
:::::It is not of the DYK quality I am familiar with. There are contradictory, repeated, unclear, wrong, and plagiarized statement throughout. It mixes up time and processes and structures. Every time anyone with the most basic knowledge comes by they notice things like the ma without Greenland. The article was written by an editor who pit Hawaii on North America. I was okay when editors seemed wilking to generate and outline and work from a solid source, but no one is addressing the fundamentally bad geology and geography used in creating this article. It does not belong on the main page, no matter how many times editors without geological knowledge shoot the messenger. -[[Special:Contributions/198.228.216.170|198.228.216.170]] ([[User talk:198.228.216.170|talk]]) 15:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

{{-}}}}

Template:Did you know nominations/Helicia

2013-04-28T03:07:08Z

198.228.216.170: /* Helicia */

{{DYKsubpage
|monthyear=April 2013
|passed=
|2=
{{DYKC}}
====Helicia====
{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Helicia|Helicia}}
<div style="float:right;margin-left:0.5em;">
[[File:Helicia glabriflora Coffs Harbour Botanic Gardens.jpg|100x100px|Helicia glabriflora - foliage]]
</div>
{{*mp}}... that there are around 100 species of '''''[[Helicia]]''''' ''([[Helicia glabriflora|H. glabriflora]] pictured)'' found from Sri Lanka and China to Australia?

:{{*mp}} ''Reviewed'': [[Template:Did you know nominations/Aurore (grape)]]
5x expanded by [[User:Macropneuma|Macropneuma]] ([[User talk:Macropneuma|talk]]), [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]]). Nominated by [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]]) at 09:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC).


:[[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]]Great job on the article. Out of curiosity, did you mean to say India instead of Sri Lanka? I'm not seeing the words "Sri Lanka" anywhere in the article, but many references to the Indian subcontinent. If you put an inline cite in for Sri Lanka or replace Sri Lanka with India it gets my stamp of approval. Picture looks good to me. [[User:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|Rufous-crowned Sparrow]] ([[User talk:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|talk]]) 00:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::Yay! Thanks. I'm grateful, particularly for the good pick up and detective work. I’ll get onto that point now. Sources exist also for the few Sri Lanka occurrences of one endemic (or more?) ''Helicia'' species, but so far i missed giving those sentences and the Sri Lankan & Indian listed species their explicit citations. Although old, in 1956, the easiest source to appreciate and to freely access on the internet is the ''Helicia'' biogeography map and its explanatory caption [http://bhl.ala.org.au/page/40228448 here] (note [[Ceylon]]→[[Sri Lanka]]), in ''[[Flora Malesiana]]''. I'm in the process of obtaining additional higher quality reference sources for the Indian subcontinent, and parts of SE Asia. Later, there’s much more to add to this article from present and additional sources. Especially, additional missing currently accepted species names (not synonyms), which i have yet to confirm their accepted status and get all their good old ref. sources. —--[[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]] 01:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::Done! By the way can we alter the hook line to include [[New Guinea]] please? (–as the centre of diversity in the World. With or without its wikilink.) —--[[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]] 04:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Sure. Propose an alternate hook below (with wikilinks I think) and I'll give it a look. Thanks. [[User:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|Rufous-crowned Sparrow]] ([[User talk:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|talk]]) 05:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:::*'''Alt 1''' ... that approximately 100 species of '''''[[Helicia]]''''' trees ''([[Helicia glabriflora|H. glabriflora]] pictured)'' grow from [[New Guinea]] and Australia to Japan, China and Sri Lanka?
::::While i'm proposing i thought of some more improvements in this alternative above, in my terms. Options i think of instead of "around": (nothing simply: 100), "ca." preferred but is that commonly known, "about", "approx." or "approximately". —--[[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]] 06:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC) —Correcting *our* typos and a little more clarifying.—--[[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]] 10:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::: <s>[[:File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] for '''Alt 1'''.</s> (Strikethrough added by [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]]) following concerns raised by IP) I slipped approximately into Alt 2, though I'd also approve "about" if you prefer. Inline citing looks good. Not certain about wikilinking countries, but the final guy will know. Good work. [[User:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|Rufous-crowned Sparrow]] ([[User talk:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|talk]]) 15:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::Thanks, reads and sounds good to me. By the way [[New Guinea]] … a minor side point for interest, countries or islands or island subcontinents—<my happy smile>—it’s all the same to me in this context! The only question will be is it acceptable to have an additional wikilink in the hook, of that main geographic region, subtly implying that that’s the centre of diversity, which readers will find later? For your edification though, [[New Guinea]] means the whole island subcontinent, including [[Papua New Guinea]] and [[West Papua (region)]] (Indonesia – (occupying) nationality at the moment – controversially).
::::::New Guinea works well as the name—of that unique region; works well as rising above the in fact atrocious politics of occupation and the mass open cut mining corporations, controversies; works well as the mainstream biogeographic science way. See at the dab: [[Papua]], WP has wording troubles cause of this politics and Indonesian WP editors vs. different ed’s.
::::::Then there’s the useful word Papuasia—used in scholarly botany and zoology studies—but i haven't found any supporting WP articles or use of Papuasia in WP. Papuasia, as you probably know, refers to the wider region, including northern Australia and SW Pacific, centred on the New Guinea island (versus the partly overlapping Malesia region, centred west of New Guinea). 'Nice if we could use Papuasia instead of New Guinea. Phew! I know your great works on birds, so i’m relating with biogeography extra words and clarification! (2:25am) 'night! —--[[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]] 16:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:This article is very difficult to read; it is primarily a description of the literature in which various species were formally described. This could be accomplished with significantly less text, to make for a readable article. In addition, I can see the point of two citations for a formal name (the original citation and the citation referencing that as the original), but are there reasons for three? And, Macropneuma, no, I won't read 57 dense paragraphs in response. (Previously removed as PA by [[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]], restored by [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]])) -[[Special:Contributions/68.107.137.178|68.107.137.178]] ([[User talk:68.107.137.178|talk]]) 10:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
:: Wrongheaded. Studiously ignore! Falsely exaggerated negativity; Has ignored meanings of all words above and elsewhere; [[WP:WIKIHOUNDING]]; Has looked for trouble with many admins and editors—which is easy to find—otherwise diffs provided on admin request (Previously removed as PA by IP, restored by [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]])) Of course, this recent 'start' article has much more expansion yet to come, from the sources; reference sources get added first then later the prose gets expanded, from those sources; about 100 species with only about 100 refs is a well done small number. —--[[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]] 12:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

**This article has a lot of problems and should not go on the front page while suffering serious problems and ownership issues. DYK is not closed, and DYKs require community consensus. Ownership issues prevent community consensus.(Previously removed as PA by [[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]], restored by [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]]))-[[Special:Contributions/166.137.210.34|166.137.210.34]] ([[User talk:166.137.210.34|talk]]) 18:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
:*? - can you please raise specific issues on the article talk page. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 21:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC) (for instance: [[List_of_Tulostoma_species]], [[List of Ericaceae genera]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Helicia&oldid=541581930 Backaria?], [[List of Oenothera species]] and many more lists and great articles with lists. Yay! for Circeus)

* '''Note to the admin/editor managing queues - ''Do not'' add it to the queue until the specific concerns of the IP are solved.''' [[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]], you should NEVER remove anybody's comments stating its Personal Attack when it is not. The IP was correct in his removal of your PA, but to be fair,I have restored both removed portions. [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]]) 00:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
:: Also note for anyone concerned - This issue was brought to my notice following a question filed at the [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Participating_in_DYK|Teahouse]]. [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]]) 00:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Which are what? Yes, a good chunk of the article is a list of the species in the genus, but that is standard for a genus article and does not count for the expansion. I believe the diversity and distribution and the cultivation sections alone count for the expansion of the article, and they are quite readable. Part of the job of a genus article is to outline the taxonomic history of said genus; it is all contained within one section that can be skipped if it is not of interest, and I thought it was at least decently well written. Per the claims of ownership, I don't see a single edit in its history since February that wasn't made by a bot or one of the nominators; how can ownership be claimed if no one has tried to edit it? macropneuma should not have removed the comment, but what precisely is preventing it from being promoted? That it is overcited? Thanks. [[User:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|Rufous-crowned Sparrow]] ([[User talk:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|talk]]) 00:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
::::The ownership issue is refusing to allow participation in this DYK nomination. The section on the naming is problematic, and I have raised the issue on the talk page. It is not comprehensible due to its convoluted nature,and this article is about the genus, not about the naming of the genus, this could be written in a straight forward manner. I do not know if shortening it will cause the length to be too short for DYK, but there is no need to include the direct Latin in old script for an article on a genus. I do not think anyone raised an issue about the species list, that could be in a separate list article or not. -[[Special:Contributions/198.228.216.170|198.228.216.170]] ([[User talk:198.228.216.170|talk]]) 02:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::By my count, the article meets the DYK requirements solely with the Diversity and distribution and the Cultivation sections. I have to disagree with you; the taxonomic history of a genus (or family, or species) is important to understanding its place in the natural world and its evolution over time, and most good animal, plant, and fungus articles have a similar section that varies in length per the information available. The generic name's etymology is also interesting as it gives insight into what the namer of the genus thought made it distinct (or is used simply to honor a friend, or benefactor, or auctioned off online ([[GoldenPalace.com monkey]]).
::::::Please see my comments on the article talk page. Nowhere have I requested that the article not have taxonomy or etymology information. -[[Special:Contributions/198.228.216.170|198.228.216.170]] ([[User talk:198.228.216.170|talk]]) 03:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::Which of the DYK requirements do you feel that the article does not meet (at the top of this page as you try to edit it)? Any issues with the content of the page in terms of complexity of language are more for the article itself, not for a DYK as I understand it. My suggestion would be to draft a revision of the Taxonomy and either be bold and post it (if it does not cut out information) or propose it on the article's talk page for commentary (if it does cut out information). Regardless, I do not think this impacts the DYK itself but is rather an issue for the article and its talk page; if you disagree, please note what of the above criteria you do not believe this page meets. [[User:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|Rufous-crowned Sparrow]] ([[User talk:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|talk]]) 02:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::If that section remains unreadable, I will template it, and, then some editors will not want an article on the main page with a template that says it is gibberish. I have been told I should raise the issue at DYK before it is promoted. I am doing so. Please, read the section about naming and put it in English. Trying to do so will show you that is is mostly unreadable and contains information that is not needed which blocks the readability for no gain in knowledge. -[[Special:Contributions/198.228.216.170|198.228.216.170]] ([[User talk:198.228.216.170|talk]]) 03:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Helicia

2013-04-28T03:03:40Z

198.228.216.170: /* Helicia */

{{DYKsubpage
|monthyear=April 2013
|passed=
|2=
{{DYKC}}
====Helicia====
{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Helicia|Helicia}}
<div style="float:right;margin-left:0.5em;">
[[File:Helicia glabriflora Coffs Harbour Botanic Gardens.jpg|100x100px|Helicia glabriflora - foliage]]
</div>
{{*mp}}... that there are around 100 species of '''''[[Helicia]]''''' ''([[Helicia glabriflora|H. glabriflora]] pictured)'' found from Sri Lanka and China to Australia?

:{{*mp}} ''Reviewed'': [[Template:Did you know nominations/Aurore (grape)]]
5x expanded by [[User:Macropneuma|Macropneuma]] ([[User talk:Macropneuma|talk]]), [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]]). Nominated by [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]]) at 09:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC).


:[[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]]Great job on the article. Out of curiosity, did you mean to say India instead of Sri Lanka? I'm not seeing the words "Sri Lanka" anywhere in the article, but many references to the Indian subcontinent. If you put an inline cite in for Sri Lanka or replace Sri Lanka with India it gets my stamp of approval. Picture looks good to me. [[User:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|Rufous-crowned Sparrow]] ([[User talk:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|talk]]) 00:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::Yay! Thanks. I'm grateful, particularly for the good pick up and detective work. I’ll get onto that point now. Sources exist also for the few Sri Lanka occurrences of one endemic (or more?) ''Helicia'' species, but so far i missed giving those sentences and the Sri Lankan & Indian listed species their explicit citations. Although old, in 1956, the easiest source to appreciate and to freely access on the internet is the ''Helicia'' biogeography map and its explanatory caption [http://bhl.ala.org.au/page/40228448 here] (note [[Ceylon]]→[[Sri Lanka]]), in ''[[Flora Malesiana]]''. I'm in the process of obtaining additional higher quality reference sources for the Indian subcontinent, and parts of SE Asia. Later, there’s much more to add to this article from present and additional sources. Especially, additional missing currently accepted species names (not synonyms), which i have yet to confirm their accepted status and get all their good old ref. sources. —--[[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]] 01:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::Done! By the way can we alter the hook line to include [[New Guinea]] please? (–as the centre of diversity in the World. With or without its wikilink.) —--[[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]] 04:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Sure. Propose an alternate hook below (with wikilinks I think) and I'll give it a look. Thanks. [[User:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|Rufous-crowned Sparrow]] ([[User talk:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|talk]]) 05:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:::*'''Alt 1''' ... that approximately 100 species of '''''[[Helicia]]''''' trees ''([[Helicia glabriflora|H. glabriflora]] pictured)'' grow from [[New Guinea]] and Australia to Japan, China and Sri Lanka?
::::While i'm proposing i thought of some more improvements in this alternative above, in my terms. Options i think of instead of "around": (nothing simply: 100), "ca." preferred but is that commonly known, "about", "approx." or "approximately". —--[[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]] 06:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC) —Correcting *our* typos and a little more clarifying.—--[[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]] 10:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::: <s>[[:File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] for '''Alt 1'''.</s> (Strikethrough added by [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]]) following concerns raised by IP) I slipped approximately into Alt 2, though I'd also approve "about" if you prefer. Inline citing looks good. Not certain about wikilinking countries, but the final guy will know. Good work. [[User:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|Rufous-crowned Sparrow]] ([[User talk:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|talk]]) 15:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::Thanks, reads and sounds good to me. By the way [[New Guinea]] … a minor side point for interest, countries or islands or island subcontinents—<my happy smile>—it’s all the same to me in this context! The only question will be is it acceptable to have an additional wikilink in the hook, of that main geographic region, subtly implying that that’s the centre of diversity, which readers will find later? For your edification though, [[New Guinea]] means the whole island subcontinent, including [[Papua New Guinea]] and [[West Papua (region)]] (Indonesia – (occupying) nationality at the moment – controversially).
::::::New Guinea works well as the name—of that unique region; works well as rising above the in fact atrocious politics of occupation and the mass open cut mining corporations, controversies; works well as the mainstream biogeographic science way. See at the dab: [[Papua]], WP has wording troubles cause of this politics and Indonesian WP editors vs. different ed’s.
::::::Then there’s the useful word Papuasia—used in scholarly botany and zoology studies—but i haven't found any supporting WP articles or use of Papuasia in WP. Papuasia, as you probably know, refers to the wider region, including northern Australia and SW Pacific, centred on the New Guinea island (versus the partly overlapping Malesia region, centred west of New Guinea). 'Nice if we could use Papuasia instead of New Guinea. Phew! I know your great works on birds, so i’m relating with biogeography extra words and clarification! (2:25am) 'night! —--[[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]] 16:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:This article is very difficult to read; it is primarily a description of the literature in which various species were formally described. This could be accomplished with significantly less text, to make for a readable article. In addition, I can see the point of two citations for a formal name (the original citation and the citation referencing that as the original), but are there reasons for three? And, Macropneuma, no, I won't read 57 dense paragraphs in response. (Previously removed as PA by [[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]], restored by [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]])) -[[Special:Contributions/68.107.137.178|68.107.137.178]] ([[User talk:68.107.137.178|talk]]) 10:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
:: Wrongheaded. Studiously ignore! Falsely exaggerated negativity; Has ignored meanings of all words above and elsewhere; [[WP:WIKIHOUNDING]]; Has looked for trouble with many admins and editors—which is easy to find—otherwise diffs provided on admin request (Previously removed as PA by IP, restored by [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]])) Of course, this recent 'start' article has much more expansion yet to come, from the sources; reference sources get added first then later the prose gets expanded, from those sources; about 100 species with only about 100 refs is a well done small number. —--[[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]] 12:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

**This article has a lot of problems and should not go on the front page while suffering serious problems and ownership issues. DYK is not closed, and DYKs require community consensus. Ownership issues prevent community consensus.(Previously removed as PA by [[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]], restored by [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]]))-[[Special:Contributions/166.137.210.34|166.137.210.34]] ([[User talk:166.137.210.34|talk]]) 18:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
:*? - can you please raise specific issues on the article talk page. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 21:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC) (for instance: [[List_of_Tulostoma_species]], [[List of Ericaceae genera]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Helicia&oldid=541581930 Backaria?], [[List of Oenothera species]] and many more lists and great articles with lists. Yay! for Circeus)

* '''Note to the admin/editor managing queues - ''Do not'' add it to the queue until the specific concerns of the IP are solved.''' [[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]], you should NEVER remove anybody's comments stating its Personal Attack when it is not. The IP was correct in his removal of your PA, but to be fair,I have restored both removed portions. [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]]) 00:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
:: Also note for anyone concerned - This issue was brought to my notice following a question filed at the [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Participating_in_DYK|Teahouse]]. [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]]) 00:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Which are what? Yes, a good chunk of the article is a list of the species in the genus, but that is standard for a genus article and does not count for the expansion. I believe the diversity and distribution and the cultivation sections alone count for the expansion of the article, and they are quite readable. Part of the job of a genus article is to outline the taxonomic history of said genus; it is all contained within one section that can be skipped if it is not of interest, and I thought it was at least decently well written. Per the claims of ownership, I don't see a single edit in its history since February that wasn't made by a bot or one of the nominators; how can ownership be claimed if no one has tried to edit it? macropneuma should not have removed the comment, but what precisely is preventing it from being promoted? That it is overcited? Thanks. [[User:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|Rufous-crowned Sparrow]] ([[User talk:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|talk]]) 00:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
::::The ownership issue is refusing to allow participation in this DYK nomination. The section on the naming is problematic, and I have raised the issue on the talk page. It is not comprehensible due to its convoluted nature,and this article is about the genus, not about the naming of the genus, this could be written in a straight forward manner. I do not know if shortening it will cause the length to be too short for DYK, but there is no need to include the direct Latin in old script for an article on a genus. I do not think anyone raised an issue about the species list, that could be in a separate list article or not. -[[Special:Contributions/198.228.216.170|198.228.216.170]] ([[User talk:198.228.216.170|talk]]) 02:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::By my count, the article meets the DYK requirements solely with the Diversity and distribution and the Cultivation sections. I have to disagree with you; the taxonomic history of a genus (or family, or species) is important to understanding its place in the natural world and its evolution over time, and most good animal, plant, and fungus articles have a similar section that varies in length per the information available. The generic name's etymology is also interesting as it gives insight into what the namer of the genus thought made it distinct (or is used simply to honor a friend, or benefactor, or auctioned off online ([[GoldenPalace.com monkey]]).
::::::Please see my comments on the article talk page. Nowhere have I requested that the article not have taxonomy or etymology information. -[[Special:Contributions/198.228.216.170|198.228.216.170]] ([[User talk:198.228.216.170|talk]]) 03:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
:::::Which of the DYK requirements do you feel that the article does not meet (at the top of this page as you try to edit it)? Any issues with the content of the page in terms of complexity of language are more for the article itself, not for a DYK as I understand it. My suggestion would be to draft a revision of the Taxonomy and either be bold and post it (if it does not cut out information) or propose it on the article's talk page for commentary (if it does cut out information). Regardless, I do not think this impacts the DYK itself but is rather an issue for the article and its talk page; if you disagree, please note what of the above criteria you do not believe this page meets. [[User:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|Rufous-crowned Sparrow]] ([[User talk:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|talk]]) 02:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Helicia

2013-04-28T02:40:29Z

198.228.216.170: /* Helicia */

{{DYKsubpage
|monthyear=April 2013
|passed=
|2=
{{DYKC}}
====Helicia====
{{DYK nompage links|nompage=Helicia|Helicia}}
<div style="float:right;margin-left:0.5em;">
[[File:Helicia glabriflora Coffs Harbour Botanic Gardens.jpg|100x100px|Helicia glabriflora - foliage]]
</div>
{{*mp}}... that there are around 100 species of '''''[[Helicia]]''''' ''([[Helicia glabriflora|H. glabriflora]] pictured)'' found from Sri Lanka and China to Australia?

:{{*mp}} ''Reviewed'': [[Template:Did you know nominations/Aurore (grape)]]
5x expanded by [[User:Macropneuma|Macropneuma]] ([[User talk:Macropneuma|talk]]), [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]]). Nominated by [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]]) at 09:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC).


:[[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]]Great job on the article. Out of curiosity, did you mean to say India instead of Sri Lanka? I'm not seeing the words "Sri Lanka" anywhere in the article, but many references to the Indian subcontinent. If you put an inline cite in for Sri Lanka or replace Sri Lanka with India it gets my stamp of approval. Picture looks good to me. [[User:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|Rufous-crowned Sparrow]] ([[User talk:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|talk]]) 00:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::Yay! Thanks. I'm grateful, particularly for the good pick up and detective work. I’ll get onto that point now. Sources exist also for the few Sri Lanka occurrences of one endemic (or more?) ''Helicia'' species, but so far i missed giving those sentences and the Sri Lankan & Indian listed species their explicit citations. Although old, in 1956, the easiest source to appreciate and to freely access on the internet is the ''Helicia'' biogeography map and its explanatory caption [http://bhl.ala.org.au/page/40228448 here] (note [[Ceylon]]→[[Sri Lanka]]), in ''[[Flora Malesiana]]''. I'm in the process of obtaining additional higher quality reference sources for the Indian subcontinent, and parts of SE Asia. Later, there’s much more to add to this article from present and additional sources. Especially, additional missing currently accepted species names (not synonyms), which i have yet to confirm their accepted status and get all their good old ref. sources. —--[[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]] 01:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::Done! By the way can we alter the hook line to include [[New Guinea]] please? (–as the centre of diversity in the World. With or without its wikilink.) —--[[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]] 04:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Sure. Propose an alternate hook below (with wikilinks I think) and I'll give it a look. Thanks. [[User:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|Rufous-crowned Sparrow]] ([[User talk:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|talk]]) 05:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:::*'''Alt 1''' ... that approximately 100 species of '''''[[Helicia]]''''' trees ''([[Helicia glabriflora|H. glabriflora]] pictured)'' grow from [[New Guinea]] and Australia to Japan, China and Sri Lanka?
::::While i'm proposing i thought of some more improvements in this alternative above, in my terms. Options i think of instead of "around": (nothing simply: 100), "ca." preferred but is that commonly known, "about", "approx." or "approximately". —--[[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]] 06:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC) —Correcting *our* typos and a little more clarifying.—--[[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]] 10:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::: <s>[[:File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] for '''Alt 1'''.</s> (Strikethrough added by [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]]) following concerns raised by IP) I slipped approximately into Alt 2, though I'd also approve "about" if you prefer. Inline citing looks good. Not certain about wikilinking countries, but the final guy will know. Good work. [[User:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|Rufous-crowned Sparrow]] ([[User talk:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|talk]]) 15:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
::::::Thanks, reads and sounds good to me. By the way [[New Guinea]] … a minor side point for interest, countries or islands or island subcontinents—<my happy smile>—it’s all the same to me in this context! The only question will be is it acceptable to have an additional wikilink in the hook, of that main geographic region, subtly implying that that’s the centre of diversity, which readers will find later? For your edification though, [[New Guinea]] means the whole island subcontinent, including [[Papua New Guinea]] and [[West Papua (region)]] (Indonesia – (occupying) nationality at the moment – controversially).
::::::New Guinea works well as the name—of that unique region; works well as rising above the in fact atrocious politics of occupation and the mass open cut mining corporations, controversies; works well as the mainstream biogeographic science way. See at the dab: [[Papua]], WP has wording troubles cause of this politics and Indonesian WP editors vs. different ed’s.
::::::Then there’s the useful word Papuasia—used in scholarly botany and zoology studies—but i haven't found any supporting WP articles or use of Papuasia in WP. Papuasia, as you probably know, refers to the wider region, including northern Australia and SW Pacific, centred on the New Guinea island (versus the partly overlapping Malesia region, centred west of New Guinea). 'Nice if we could use Papuasia instead of New Guinea. Phew! I know your great works on birds, so i’m relating with biogeography extra words and clarification! (2:25am) 'night! —--[[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]] 16:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
:This article is very difficult to read; it is primarily a description of the literature in which various species were formally described. This could be accomplished with significantly less text, to make for a readable article. In addition, I can see the point of two citations for a formal name (the original citation and the citation referencing that as the original), but are there reasons for three? And, Macropneuma, no, I won't read 57 dense paragraphs in response. (Previously removed as PA by [[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]], restored by [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]])) -[[Special:Contributions/68.107.137.178|68.107.137.178]] ([[User talk:68.107.137.178|talk]]) 10:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
:: Wrongheaded. Studiously ignore! Falsely exaggerated negativity; Has ignored meanings of all words above and elsewhere; [[WP:WIKIHOUNDING]]; Has looked for trouble with many admins and editors—which is easy to find—otherwise diffs provided on admin request (Previously removed as PA by IP, restored by [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]])) Of course, this recent 'start' article has much more expansion yet to come, from the sources; reference sources get added first then later the prose gets expanded, from those sources; about 100 species with only about 100 refs is a well done small number. —--[[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]] 12:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

**This article has a lot of problems and should not go on the front page while suffering serious problems and ownership issues. DYK is not closed, and DYKs require community consensus. Ownership issues prevent community consensus.(Previously removed as PA by [[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]], restored by [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]]))-[[Special:Contributions/166.137.210.34|166.137.210.34]] ([[User talk:166.137.210.34|talk]]) 18:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
:*? - can you please raise specific issues on the article talk page. [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 21:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC) (for instance: [[List_of_Tulostoma_species]], [[List of Ericaceae genera]], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Helicia&oldid=541581930 Backaria?], [[List of Oenothera species]] and many more lists and great articles with lists. Yay! for Circeus)

* '''Note to the admin/editor managing queues - ''Do not'' add it to the queue until the specific concerns of the IP are solved.''' [[:en:User:Macropneuma|macropneuma]], you should NEVER remove anybody's comments stating its Personal Attack when it is not. The IP was correct in his removal of your PA, but to be fair,I have restored both removed portions. [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]]) 00:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
:: Also note for anyone concerned - This issue was brought to my notice following a question filed at the [[Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#Participating_in_DYK|Teahouse]]. [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]]) 00:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
:::Which are what? Yes, a good chunk of the article is a list of the species in the genus, but that is standard for a genus article and does not count for the expansion. I believe the diversity and distribution and the cultivation sections alone count for the expansion of the article, and they are quite readable. Part of the job of a genus article is to outline the taxonomic history of said genus; it is all contained within one section that can be skipped if it is not of interest, and I thought it was at least decently well written. Per the claims of ownership, I don't see a single edit in its history since February that wasn't made by a bot or one of the nominators; how can ownership be claimed if no one has tried to edit it? macropneuma should not have removed the comment, but what precisely is preventing it from being promoted? That it is overcited? Thanks. [[User:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|Rufous-crowned Sparrow]] ([[User talk:Rufous-crowned Sparrow|talk]]) 00:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
::::The ownership issue is refusing to allow participation in this DYK nomination. The section on the naming is problematic, and I have raised the issue on the talk page. It is not comprehensible due to its convoluted nature,and this article is about the genus, not about the naming of the genus, this could be written in a straight forward manner. I do not know if shortening it will cause the length to be too short for DYK, but there is no need to include the direct Latin in old script for an article on a genus. I do not think anyone raised an issue about the species list, that could be in a separate list article or not. -[[Special:Contributions/198.228.216.170|198.228.216.170]] ([[User talk:198.228.216.170|talk]]) 02:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)