Talk:Croton alabamensis var. texensis

A fact from Croton alabamensis var. texensis appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 February 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Texabama croton was nearly simultaneously discovered at Fort Hood and Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge in 1989?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Croton alabamensis var. texensis.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Texabama Croton

... that Texabama Croton (pictured) was nearly simultaneously discovered at Fort Hood and Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge in 1989? Source: "In 1989, it was almost simultaneously discovered at Fort Hood and on the Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge"[1]
- ALT1:... that Croton alabamensis var. texensis (pictured) is separated from the nominate variety of C. alabamensis by more than 1,000 kilometres (620 mi)? Source: "In a surprising discovery in 1989, C. alabamensis was found in central Texas, more than 1000 km from the Alabama populations" [2]

Reviewed: Sucker Punch Productions

Created by TDogg310 (talk). Self-nominated at 03:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Approve Main Hook The article was created on the 17th and nominated two days later, so is new enough. It is more than long enough and now has an in-line citation matching the source used here for the original hook (it's a stupid rule, but it's a rule). No meaningful copyvio issue after running it through the tool. I think the original hook is more interesting than the alt, so let's go with the main one. The hook is short enough and neutral. The image is under a free license, is used in the article, and shows up fine at a small size. The QPQ has been done. Good to go. Silver seren^C 01:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]