Talk:Helianthus devernii

Working on description

@Alalch E. I got access to the BioOne digital library today. I've started checking over the information referenced in the paper and so far it has checked out, no problems. I've also started adding a description to the article. Thanks for letting me know about this article. Interesting to know about this plant. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for responding to my request and making such a big difference here. Interesting plant, yeah. —Alalch E. 18:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@MtBotany Also this is a good DYK candidate, and probably needs just a little more work to ensure it meets WP:DYK#gen4 (some of the information relating to its conservation status is uncited). —Alalch E. 19:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Alalch E., but I had some trouble at DYK. Got a bit stressed and noped out for a while so while objectively it would be not big thing to jump back in and do some reviews it is a bit of mental block for me right now. I love working on articles but get a bit twitchy when I have even a self created deadline. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Alalch E. and @MtBotany, sorry I totally missed that you discussed DYK nomination here. I just nominated the article. Feel free to add the hooks you would have preferred for the nomination. Apologies, --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I am fine with the article being nominated, I just cannot do the process myself and might need to take a break from watching if I get stressed. @Classicwiki 🌿MtBotany (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@UtherSRG, the edits you made to the plant description by removing the parenthesis and adding the scientific terms to the sentences make them more difficult to read and quite awkward. If you are sure that it would be better without parenthetical scientific terms I'll rewrite the description to link the terms using their plain English equivalents, but I think having the scientific terms adds to the educational value of the article and would prefer to put it back the way it was before I continued writing the description. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@MtBotany: Using scientific terminology is fine. Usually, folks will write something using scientific terminology, with the link, and put the meaning in parenthesis. We then typically remove the parenthesis, because the meaning isn't needed as it is given at the destination of the link. You, on the other hand, did it backwards, putting the the terms in the parenthesis. I did my best to massage it into how it would be the other way, but without the parens. If you want to write it better, please do, but there's no need to get rid of the technical terms. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I did not express myself very well. I've edited the page to show how I would have finished off the description. I think that a relatively plain English description is best. I put the botanical jargon in parenthesis to teach and make it available to more botanically educated audience members, but to de-emphasize it. I've also made the leaf lengths centimeters rather than millimeters as I think that is easier to understand. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

The idea is to not use parentheticals as they break up the flow of reading, especially when using multiple parentheticals. If you don't want the technical terms, I suggest linking the common words to the technical term. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, the {{cvt}} template allows folks who don't understand metric to understand the sizes used. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

There is a contradiction there. Convert or cvt also break up the flow of the article because they put the figures in parentheticals. So which is it? Do parentheticals break up the flow too much and should be avoided or are they needed?

This is, after all, a science article and science articles per MOS:METRIC, should be in metric measures. The average person will be equally mystified by both the metric and US traditional measures in 4.1–5.6 cm (1+5⁄8–2+3⁄16 in).

To your earlier point, I'll produce what I think would be a better plain English version without the parentheticals since you think they're bad. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Take a look at B-grade or higher plant articles so that you can see what I'm asking you to shoot for. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Red Rock sunflower in bloom

• ... that the newly discovered and critically imperiled Red Rock sunflower (Helianthus devernii) can only be found around two desert springs located in Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area? Source: NatureServe, USGS
  • ALT1: ... that the newly discovered and critically imperiled Red Rock sunflower (Helianthus devernii) can only be found in an area less than an acre at Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area? Source: BioOne
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Article created by Mezbalogh; article updated by Alalch E. and MtBotany.

Created by Mezbalogh (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC).

• Hi Classicwiki, I've had a quick look at this one. I've made a couple of changes to improve grammar but there are two sections that need citations for the article to be eligible for DYK. Let me know if you can fix these and I will come back to complete the review. Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @Dumelow, some of the information had to be stripped, but tried to address the CN tags the best I could. Let me know what you think. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 04:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
• @Mezbalogh, @Alalch E., @MtBotany, do you know the source of the new count in 2022 which found approximately 900 individuals? I cannot find the survey. Right now I only find sources for the ~400 count. --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 18:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @Classicwiki Mezbalogh was the editor who added that information. It was unclear where they got it from. I left it in while looking for a good source, but was not able to find the 900. I did find a presentation from Nevada Division of Natural Heritage saying 725. I've updated the article to reflect this. That work okay? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Mezbalogh is the creator of this article and an entirely new editor unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy who had added some of their (explicitly) original research to the original version and first few revisions. So they probably got it from their individual, original, research.—Alalch E. 23:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks all, changes made look good. Classicwiki, I will complete the DYK review: Article created 18 June and is of good length; sources used look to be reliable for the content cited; I don't have access to all the sources but didn't find any issue with overly close paraphrasing in a spotcheck; hooks are interesting and stated in the article (I amended ALT0 to "around two desert springs" as there is a third cluster nearby), AGF on sourcing to journal I don't have access to; image is good and properly licensed; a QPQ is not required in this case. Should be good to go. I just had one remaining query on a part of the text that discusses recreational use of the area and links this to invasive weeds, which I couldn't find in the source. Once this is sorted it will be good to go - Dumelow (talk) 08:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)