Template:Did you know nominations/Fontinalis antipyretica

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 Allen3 talk 21:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Fontinalis antipyretica edit

  • ... that common water moss grows underwater in fast-flowing streams and on the beds of lakes?

Created by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nominated at 06:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC).

Thank you for reviewing the article. I thought the images not sufficiently striking to use in the nomination. The second one is actually of two species of moss. With regard to the source you mention, I used it 3 times in the article.
  1. One was the description of the moss and uses some of the same words, but I do not believe there is any close paraphrasing.
  2. The source states "In northern North America extending southward to Pennsylvania in the east and Arizona in the west. Also in Europe, Asia, and Africa." and I state "Fontinalis antipyretica is found in North America as far south as Pennsylvania and Arizona, and also in Europe, Asia and parts of Africa." There aren't too many ways of giving these facts.
  3. The source states "Water moss is found attached to rocks or logs in swift flowing water, or floating loose or attached to substrate in still water. It is common in shaded sites and prefers slightly acidic water. It requires water below pH 8.4 where dissolved carbon dioxide is available." I state "It grows attached to submerged rocks in fast-flowing water. It also occurs attached to the substrate in lakes and as floating masses in still water, and may be cast up on beaches at the waterside. It thrives in shady positions and prefers acid water, a pH of around 8.4 being the maximum tolerated." I don't think these constitute close paraphrasing, or was there anything else? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for late feedback. Point taken on 1, 2 and 3, did a slightly different scan with dupl detector and seems to check out fine. --Soman (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)