Talk:Semiaquilegia adoxoides
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Semiaquilegia adoxoides article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Did you know nomination
[edit]
- ... that a 1920 article segregated members of Isopyrum into the new genus Paraquilegia - assigning it P. grandflorum, P. caespitosa, P. microphylla (example pictured), and P. uniflora - but had the "rather less fortunate" effect of expanding Semiaquilegia beyond S. adoxoides?
- Source: Nold, Robert (2003). Columbines: Aquilegia, Paraquilegia, and Semiaquilegia. Portland, OR: Timber Press. ISBN 0881925888 – via Archive.org.
- Reviewed: 1.) Template:Did you know nominations/Plutonium Finishing Plant, 2.) Template:Did you know nominations/1996 North Carolina Secretary of State election, 3.) Template:Did you know nominations/Mariann Budde, 4.) Template:Did you know nominations/Tornadoes in Oklahoma, 5. Template:Did you know nominations/Devello Z. Sheffield, 6.) Template:Did you know nominations/2025 U.S. Open Cup, 7.) Template:Did you know nominations/Louise Beach, 8.) Template:Did you know nominations/Lamtiur Andaliah Panggabean
- Comment: For reasons I hope are obvious, please give me a bit of time to complete the requisite QPQs.
Pbritti (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC).
- Reviewing-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- All 8 QPQs are good.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Isopyrum, 2741 characters, 5x since 1/27
- Paraquilegia, 3682 characters, 5x since 1/21
- Paraquilegia anemonoides, 3076 characters, new 1/25
- Paraquilegia caespitosa, 3307 characters, new 1/26
- Paraquilegia microphylla, 6409 characters, new 1/26
- Paraquilegia uniflora, 2498 characters, 5x since 1/23, moved to mainspace 1/27
- Semiaquilegia, 3526 characters, 5x since 1/26
- Semiaquilegia adoxoides, 2423 characters, 5x since 1/21, moved to mainspace 1/27-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- New enough and long enough with minimal overlap.
- All articles are fully cited via WP:IC in every paragraph of the main body. Some use fully cited WP:LEADs. Isopyrum and Semiaquilegia have uncited LEAD which is acceptable. Paraquilegia microphylla has one cited paragraph and one uncited paragraph, which is unacceptable. All facts in the article must be fully cited and the LEAD should summarize the facts of the main body. The LEAD can either be fully cited (all facts cited) or fully uncited. Paraquilegia caespitosa, Paraquilegia uniflora and Semiaquilegia adoxoides have sloppy LEADS where within paragraphs some facts are cited but added text on the ends of the paragraphs seem to have facts that are uncited. Thus, citation mechanics is overall not acceptable.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Nominator notified regarding this issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Articles pass copyvio detector 10.7, 5.7, 1.0, 0.0, 4.8, 2.0, 0.0 and 2.9%, respectively.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- All text is neutral.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Image is found in Paraquilegia and is sufficient quality and freely lisenced.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hook is short enough, cited, and interesting?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- Will notify nominator of citation issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger: Thanks for taking the time necessary to review these articles and this nomination. Unfortunately, I think you are mistaken: WP:LEAD does not mandate that a lead must be entirely cited or uncited. Additionally, I don't believe conformity to that type of MOS convention is necessary according to the DYK standards. I will nevertheless revise the leads (because why not, right?), but I'm fairly certain the stated matter is a non-issue. Again, I must extend my greatest gratitute to you for undertaking this task. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'd have to go back through all my FAC noms to find it, but there was a time when you had to decide whether to cite all facts in the LEAD or to leave them all uncited. A partially cited LEAD was considered a defect. I don't currently see any precise directive at WP:LEAD, WP:IC, WP:V or WP:RS. Not sure what to make of that quandry. I feel I have been properly trained to try to either use the fully cited or fully uncited LEAD style, but I can't find a directive that makes a randomly cited LEAD wrong. You are certainly not trying to achieve FA quality here. I was just trying to get you to cite things how I remember them to be correct, but 8 articles is quite an undertaking and I could let the LEADs rest if there is a reason to leave them be.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger: I've modified the leads regardless, excising the citations from those leads that were only partially cited. Relatedly, one of those articles will hopefully hit FAC later this year, as I've uncovered a substantial amount of Wikipedia Library material on the species in question and can flesh it out properly! If you see anything else holding up this nom, please let me know. Again, I'm indebted to your patience and thoroughness on this review! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'd have to go back through all my FAC noms to find it, but there was a time when you had to decide whether to cite all facts in the LEAD or to leave them all uncited. A partially cited LEAD was considered a defect. I don't currently see any precise directive at WP:LEAD, WP:IC, WP:V or WP:RS. Not sure what to make of that quandry. I feel I have been properly trained to try to either use the fully cited or fully uncited LEAD style, but I can't find a directive that makes a randomly cited LEAD wrong. You are certainly not trying to achieve FA quality here. I was just trying to get you to cite things how I remember them to be correct, but 8 articles is quite an undertaking and I could let the LEADs rest if there is a reason to leave them be.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger: Thanks for taking the time necessary to review these articles and this nomination. Unfortunately, I think you are mistaken: WP:LEAD does not mandate that a lead must be entirely cited or uncited. Additionally, I don't believe conformity to that type of MOS convention is necessary according to the DYK standards. I will nevertheless revise the leads (because why not, right?), but I'm fairly certain the stated matter is a non-issue. Again, I must extend my greatest gratitute to you for undertaking this task. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:10, 7 February 2025 (UTC)