Talk:Euphorbia kaokoensis

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Africa: Namibia Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Namibia (assessed as Low-importance).

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Namibia may be able to help!

The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No viable hook; closing as unsuccessful.

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Euphorbia kaokoensis is so rare that a man from the area it is found was unaware of its existence? Source: [1] :— "Erythrococca kaokoensis is rare and localised with only a few plants at each locality. It was unknown to a local Ovahimba herdsman who was raised in the area and who accompanied the author on one of his visits to the type locality."
ALT1: ... that Euphorbia kaokoensis is listed as Least Concern despite being a rare species? Source: [2]
ALT2: ... that Euphorbia kaokoensis was classified as Least Concern despite a recommendation for it to be classified as Vulnerable? Source: [3]
- Reviewed: [[]]
- Comment: My last free DYK.

5x expanded by An anonymous username, not my real name (talk). Self-nominated at 16:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC).[reply]

While the hook is kind of catchy, I'm not sure if it's the best option here. I imagine it's very common for anyone to be unaware of the various species that live near where they live. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A valid point, but I'm not sure if the article actually contains a better alternative. Anyway, the way it's currently worded will hopefully catch readers' attention before they start thinking too far into it. An anonymous username, not my real name 16:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An anonymous username, not my real name and Narutolovehinata5 ALT1 ... that Euphorbia kaokoensis is listed as Least Concern despite being a rare species? SL93 (talk) 23:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sound good to me, although another possible ALT could be that it was classified as Least Concern despite a recommendation for it to be classified as Vulnerable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added both as ALTs. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hooks are interesting, and the article is sourced so I'll approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@An anonymous username, not my real name, SL93, and Onegreatjoke:

I can verify the first bit of ALT1 to the IUCN, and the second bit to the coining paper, but the former seems to make little mention of the latter. Wouldn't a strict reading of SYNTH say that we're putting together two sources editorially – i.e. implying that the IUCN didn't really consider the rarity of the species in classifying it? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 13:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

theleekycauldron I didn't think about that. You have a good point. SL93 (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron, SL93, Narutolovehinata5, and An anonymous username, not my real name: FWIW, I think the original was fine, but where does this stand on hook selection? Kingsif (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, Kingsif, I prefer the first, but I added the other two after other users suggested them. If you think the original is good, then I fully support it. An anonymous username, not my real name 13:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like any hook has consensus right now – I'd be happy to lift my hold on ALT1 if someone could tell me why it's justifiably not SYNTH, of course. If the nomination doesn't produce a viable hook in about a week, i think we should move towards closure, because I agree with Narutolovehinata5 that ALT0 doesn't seem all that unusual. Maybe a little unusual given the occupation of the person in question, but they are still just one person. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marking for closure. No viable hook. SL93 (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]