Talk:Aquilegia confusa
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aquilegia confusa article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Aquilegia confusa appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 March 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Did you know nomination
[edit]- 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 AirshipJungleman29 talk 11:56, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
( )
- ... that the expansion of glaciers created two distinct forms of Aquilegia confusa (pictured), with individual populations better adapted to either higher or lower elevations?
- Source: Nardi, Enio (2015). Il Genere Aquilegia L. (Ranunculaceae) in Italia/The Genus Aquilegia (Ranunculaceae) in Italy: Aquilegia Italicarum in Europaearum conspectu descriptio. Translated by Coster-Longman, Christina. Florence: Edizioni Polistampa. ISBN 9788859615187.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Tommy Cronin
- Comment: A day late on the expansion, but I can privately communicate an extremely good excuse if need be.
Pbritti (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2025 (UTC).
The article was expanded from 2,000 characters to 6,400 on February 17 and from 6,500 to 10,000 on February 24–25. Yes, it looks like the expansion was finished a day late. But it is said that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so I'm willing to pass this.
The hook looks mildly interesting and DYK-worthy. Its source is an offline book, therefore the reference is accepted in good faith. The image is freely licensed. Good to go. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)