Template:Did you know nominations/Zamia pygmaea

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: rejected by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Zamia pygmaea

An illustration of Zamia pygmaea

• ... that Zamia pygmaea (pictured) is the smallest gymnosperm cycad? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)
  • ALT1:... that less than 250 individuals of Zamia pygmaea (pictured) are left? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

• Reviewed: I still have to review another nomination and I'll post it here when it's done.

5x expanded by Ankit2299 (talk). Self-nominated at 16:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC).

Overall: Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 13:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• I see quite a few issues here. First, the numerous citation needed tags. Second, I think the Britannica source should ideally be linked to the exact page from where the info comes [1], and it says Zamia pygmaea, the smallest cycad, has leaves about 20–30 centimetres long. The smallest "cycad", not the smallest "gymnosperm", of which cycads are just a kind. ALT1 hook is verified by the IUCN source, but the citation needs to properly formatted using
  Template:Cite iucn, as it is the link does not go to the right webpage. Plus, the Pradeep Publications source (actually duplicated in the article) don't look at all reliable to me. I am an Indian student who has used these books in her high school years for exams, and I know they are not well-researched and suitable as sources for an encyclopedia. Third, there is some close paraphrasing in places which can be fixed with some rewording and rearrangement, see the comparison here [2]. Other concerns to be fixed before the article makes a main page appearance are italicizing the scientific names in the references (and in some places in the article body) plus some necessary text formatting (for example "Conservation efforts in place are" won't be a good way to write, rather this and the next two lines should be put together to form a continuous paragraph). Sorry but we need quite some work here before this can be promoted. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?)
  13:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

• @
  csdnew
  08:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Narutolovehinata5: right. I could try to make these fixes myself but I am not great at writing plant articles. Let us see what the DYK coordinators suggest. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 08:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Sainsf: I have made most of the fixes mentioned above and ALT1 looks OK, so would you like to have a look at this nomination? I don't think a QPQ is needd. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Cwmhiraeth, thank you for your efforts, the changes made should suffice if we are going ahead with ALT1. You are right about the QPQ, I assumed it was necessary as the nominator said they will be doing one. Good to go! Sainsf (t · c) 09:43, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hi, I came by to promote ALT0 without the picture. Please provide a cite for the common name in the lead. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Added cite as requested above. Problem with ALT0 is that it's not entirely true. The dimensions stated only pertain to a few stunted individual plants growing in pure white sand at a location on Isla de la Juventud (the former Z. silicea). Also the description is misquoted, I'll correct that now. Leo Breman (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Leo Breman: OK, let us know when you're done. I struck ALT0. I think you should propose a better "hook" that will make readers want to click on the article to read more. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Um, sorry, I was about to turn in and wouldn't be around for a while. I fixed the misquote (20 leaves, not 20cm leaves) and modified the statement about smallest cycad for accuracy. I've never proposed a "hook" before, maybe someone else could do it? ALT1... I haven't read the research, can't say much about it. I do note the new IUCN red list narrative clashes enormously with previous published info from Cuban researchers in the 1990s (rare, but not threatened). Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• WP:DYKN in the hopes that one of our editors will come up with a better hook. Yoninah (talk
  ) 23:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Would an attribute revision of ALT1 work? Perhaps instead of giving the ALT1 information as a sure fact, there could be some form of attribution? Something like "... that it has been estimated that there are less than 250 remaining specimens..."?
  csdnew
  09:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
• The IUCN's website is currently under maintenance so I couldn't check the current status of the species, and it's always possible that (based on what's mentioned in the article) that things changed between the research done in the 1990s and its current classification. Is the issue with ALT1 the question on whether it is endangered or not, or the number of individuals?
  csdnew
  10:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Another hook idea:
• ALT2: ... that the red dwarf cycad, which grows only in Cuba, changes drastically under cultivation, producing more and larger leaves and larger stems? Yoninah (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• Reviewer needed for ALT2. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• ALT2 relies on three sources, one of which is a journal article. The other two don't seem quite as reliable for the topic: one (for the only-in-Cuba claim) is a Dominican website using its own editorial group - raising the questions why wouldn't an official Cuban body have this information? - and the other (for the larger plant claims) is a US website that is referred to in the article as "one US website", suggesting it might not be that notable in the plant world. There's also a question why the journal that mentioned it changes with cultivation wouldn't include this? I'd like to hear more about these sources to know it's all accurate information. Kingsif (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@

csdnew

11:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Personally I would mark it for closure. The conservation section is a copyvio of the IUCN site and the nominator has vanished. I'm not sure why Earwig has missed this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

• Marking for closure as unsuccessful. The IUCN websites seem to be down right now so I cannot check them directly for close paraphrasing, but when they return, we can remove the copyvio sections. Yoninah (talk) 17:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

•  Done I removed a chunk of copyvio. Not sure if I got it all, but I left the close paraphrasing tag on the page. Yoninah (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• I have removed the rest and revision deleted the affected revisions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Cwmhiraeth: thanks. Could you close this template now? Yoninah (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)