Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-03-05/Featured content

← Back to Featured content

Discuss this story

Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus photograph

• The Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus blurb is misleading in several ways. It says "The plant, one of the first lilies to be cultivated, is found mainly in China."

• 1) It is a daylily, not a true lily. Completely different order, subfamily, family and genus. It shouldn't be called a lily as this is confusing.

• 2) Compare the blurb with the Wikipedia Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus page, which says "one of the first daylilies used for breeding". Being one of the first daylilies used for breeding is not the same thing as being 'one of the first lilies to be cultivated' at all. Breeding is to improve the plant line, to introduce new cultivars etc. Cultivation is likely to have gone on in China for millennia, growing the plant (but not necessarily breeding/developing it) for food and medicine. This ambiguity of meaning should be clarified.

• However, a far bigger and more important problem is that I am not at all convinced that the photographed exampled is a true Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus anyway. I grow it and have been to see the Hemerocallis species and cultivars held in one of the National Collections here in the UK. All examples of the plant I have ever seen are a much more lemony-yellow than the version pictured. Given that the photographed example was not growing in its natural range, it is highly likely that it is a cultivar or a hybrid, not the true species. Hemerocallis species hybridise with each other very readily.

• This brings me to one of the biggest problems in WIkipedia. We have all these rules for verifiability and sourcing in our written material, but in photographs we just take the photographer's word that the photograph shows what it purports to show. I am not suggesting the photographer here was trying to mislead; just that he or she might have been misinformed and by reproducing this photograph as a Featured Image, that error is being promulgated and given the veneer of authority and correctness. 86.134.91.157 (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Additional: The image gallery on the Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus page is as below:

• 
  1 Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus
• 
  2 Close up
• 
  3 Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus
• 
  4 Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus
• 
  5 Dried golden needles

• Of these, No 2 'Close Up' is definitely not Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus, nor of course is the image in the infobox on that page, the Featured Article shot discussed above. No 1 shows the colour of the plant well. 86.134.91.157 (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• I have added a gallery to illustrate the problems with identification, but it doesn't appear to be showing in this comment box for some reason. 86.134.91.157 (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. This seems to be an FP issue, although I see several people agree with you. The nom should be corrected, methinks. ResMar 00:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Answer of the author:

I think I did the correct identification, this file shows it:

H. flava and fulva

I wrote an extended answer to this topic here: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Huge_problem_with_a_featured_picture_-_it_is_not_what_it_claims_to_be Regards, --Paolo Costa 15:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)