Template:Did you know nominations/Leucospermum cuneiforme

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Leucospermum cuneiforme[edit]

(

)

Leucospermum cuneiforme, Potberg

... that Leucospermum cuneiforme (pictured) is known as luisiesbos ("lice bush") as its seed pods resemble lice? Source
- ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

5x expanded by Dwergenpaartje (talk). Nominated by Casliber (talk) at 12:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC).

NB: reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Eliezer Gruenbaum

Casliber (courtesy ping Dwergenpaartje):
long/new enough. Hook is interesting and cited in article\

I think I'd prefer a clarification that it is known as luisiesbos in Afrikaans, though.

Images appropriately licensed and hook image appears in article.

I think I'd appreciate a tighter crop just so the "lice-ness" can still be appreciated in such a small image, though.
(Binomen should be italicized in caption as well -- perhaps also have the genus abbreviated and I'm not sure if the location is needed for the DYK hook caption)

There are some long spans of text which only have a single reference which initially concerned me, however Earwig has 11.5%, which it classifies as "violation unlikely" and looking at Rourke and SANBI I don't think this is too closely-WP:PARAPHRASED. Ideally the promoter would take a second look just to confirm this judgement.

My main concern is that the second description paragraph lacks any citations whatsoever.

QPQ done

Like I said, every paragraph needs at least one citation at minimum. Please also let me know your thoughts on a more tightly-cropped image and on explicitly mentioning Afrikaans in the hook. Umimmak (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

perhaps File:Leucospermum cuneiforme Potberg 04.jpg is better suited for the DYK; I have no problem with luisiesbos in Afrikaans, I've added two citations for the second Description section, although no additional information was taken from the second source.Dwergenpaartje (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Dwergenpaartje: Can you explain what you mean by although no additional information was taken from the second source? The footnotes should reflect the sources which were actually used to write a particular portion of the article. And since this is casliber's nomination I just want to see their responses to my questions/comment before approving, although I'm glad there are no longer unreferenced paragraphs. Umimmak (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Dwergenpaartje is the expert so will defer to his judgement on the sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

And regarding explicitly mentioning Afrikaans in the hook and an image which better shows the "liceness" at a small scale?? Umimmak (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I can't see the relevant page on Google books so I'll AGF that is the reasoning for the etymology. I still think it would be better to specify the language Afrikaans in the hook, and to have an image which better shows the lice-like nature, but in the interest of moving this along I'll go ahead and approve. Umimmak (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)