- 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 HalfGig talk 13:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Monotropoideae edit
- ... that plants in the subfamily Monotropoideae lack chlorophyll and get food by parasitizing mycorrhizal fungi?
- ALT1:... that plants in the subfamily Monotropoideae lack chlorophyll and get food by parasitizing mycorrhizal fungi, and by extension, coniferous trees?
- ALT2:... that the non-photosynthetic plants of the subfamily Monotropoideae depend on both mycorrhizal fungi for food and bumblebees for pollination?
- ALT3:... that the Monotropoideae are a group of plants that are parasites on fungi?
- Comment: Article length expanded by over 6X from 26 December 2014 onward, with significant expansion of topic coverage. (I will be working toward further expansion of this article, to Feature Article quality.) Also, I'm aware of the problematic use of the word "food" to describe plant non-mineral nutrition, but am writing it for a general audience. Would consider "carbon" or "carbohydrates" if that would be better, though.
Will be doing a couple of DYK reviews soon, but put forth the nomination prior to this.
5x expanded by Peter G Werner (talk). Nominated by Peter G Werner (talk) at 02:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC).
- Reviewed: Acer chaneyi. Peter G Werner (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
5x expansion within the time frame allowed, QPQ done, all hooks check out and are interesting (I'd prefer the original or ALT3 as they are most to the point), within policy (and very well-written). The image is beautiful and usable; would suit the front page nicely. Good to go! A small note, which doesn't affect the DYK nomination, is that the prose, although very good, may at times be a bit too "scientific" for the average reader; you might want to consider explaining a few terms. But overall great work! Comment: you could perhaps change "food" for "nutrition"?Yakikaki (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
