Template:Did you know nominations/Dudleya cymosa subsp. pumila
- 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 Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Dudleya cymosa subsp. pumila
- ...
that the type specimen of Dudleya pumila is actually the only accurate representation of Dudleya cymosa in its range, so D.pumila became a subspecies?Source: Nakai, Kei M. (1987). “Some New and Reconsidered California Dudleya (Crassulaceae)”. Madroño. 34(4): 338–339.
Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/Walter D. Van Riper
Created by Toyonbro (talk). Nominated by Leomk0403 (talk) at 03:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Thank you for this article. A nice plant. Just a few issues. (1) I hope we can liven up the hook and find a picture - you have some good pictures in the article - what about one of those? (2) There's nothing actually wrong with the hook - I'm just not sure whether even a biologist would find the taxonomy hooky. According to the article, it grows in some great places and quite high up - could we mention that it grows in some interesting high-up location? (3) The first para in the description section needs a citation. If we can resolve the above 3 issues, this nom should be OK. Storye book (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think this article is DYK-worthy. The species it was moved to is not even monophyletic. The taxonomy for this genus is very convoluted and I don't think a layman could understand unless they read the genus page. = Toyonbro (talk) January 10, 2022
- Toyonbro I highly disagree that the article isn't DYK-worthy. I do realize that you started the article, but the nomination will continue to proceed because you don't own it. SL93 (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Storye book I took care of the uncited sentence, added more information to the article, and I added an image to the nomination. I propose ALT1 ... that the Sonoran blue butterfly uses Dudleya cymosa subsp. pumila as a plant host and hummingbirds feed on its nectar? SL93 (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, SL93 for sorting out the citations, picture and hook (which checks out in its article citation). I approve all of those. Good to go with ALT1. Storye book (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Promoting ALT1 to Prep 7, with the image and (pictured). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)