Template:Did you know nominations/Asplenium × boydstoniae
- The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Asplenium × boydstoniae
edit- ... that Boydston's spleenwort, a hybrid fern, was created in culture in 1954 but not discovered in the wild until 1971?
- Reviewed: Brunswick tram depot
Created by Choess (talk). Self nominated at 03:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC).
Created and nominated on November 1, and is over 5kB, satisfying length and date criteria. QPQ has been completed. Sources are reliable, with minor issues. This source states that sori are "irregularly placed", not "irregularly placed on the undersides of the pinnae"; have I missed something? The same source is used to support the claim "which was often placed in the genus Camptosorus instead of Asplenium", but I cannot find that in the source either. I'll assume good faith for the references for which I can only access the abstract. I can find no mention of "abortive spores" (or "spores") in this source; is it meant to be note #7 (which states "cannot be expected to exist in a fertile state" about the spores) instead of #5 (they source different pages of the same document)? The Kartesz source returns "Page Not Found". Hook is properly sourced and satisfies DYK criteria. Once these minor sourcing issues are fixed, this will be good to go. Mindmatrix 20:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- I think I've addressed your concerns now. I added Wherry's paper creating the hybrid genus ×Asplenosorus to explain why that genus was used; let me know if you need more references about that. Choess (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. By the way, my apologies for not understanding the bit about the sori; I'm not a biologist, so it wasn't obvious to me. (I just read the sorus article, so this is clearer to me now.) Anyway, all issues are addressed, and I'll assume good faith for the three references I cannot fully access. Good to go. Mindmatrix 15:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- That cranky edit summary was directed at the process, not you. I know you're just doing due diligence on this, so I don't blame you—it's just the way WP:OR works nowadays. (And I saw the recent BLP kerfuffle, so I understand you'd like to be careful on these reviews.) Thanks for taking the time to work through this. I like to think the things I send to DYK are well-referenced, but that also means a lot of time digging through and fact-checking. Choess (talk) 16:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
