Template:Did you know nominations/David Moore (1933 botanist)

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 Allen3 ^talk 13:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

David Moore (1933 botanist)

(

)

~~... that botanist David Moore was used as a Ministry of Defence advisor in the attempt to regain the Falkland Islands?~~

Reviewed: Ted Paige

Moved to mainspace by Matty.007 (talk). Self nominated at 09:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC).

It's always a pleasure to review such a throughout article. Nice job. Good sourcing, lengthy, hook is interesting, well-formatted. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 11:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you really shouldn't leave the reader on tenderhooks like this. It's coitus interruptus. Having been teased by the hook, the article left me none the wiser about Moore's importance to the British war effort. It was only after skipping to the source article that I found out why. Fact is, it had nothing to do with plantlife per se. Don't forget the climax. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

also, I suggest a more conventional and descriptive article name. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 16:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Expanded in article. What sort of alternative name would be better? Mat ty.007 17:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest David Moore (botanist born 1933) as title. As for expertise, there is considerable discontinuity in the article. DM is described as an expert in flora of S America and Antartica in the lede, but the body reveals his specialisation is in European plants. Then he suddenly becomes an authority on the Falklands. When we get to the bottom section, we learn he authored a book on the flora of the Falklands. These facts need to be reconciled, and the dots joined in a fairly rational and linear fashion. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 23:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

What is "the Commonwealth Organisation in Canberra"??? Tony (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
This: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 11:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
- In reply to Ohconfucius, he is described as a specialist in South American flora; that includes the Falklands. I edited the lead slightly. Mat ty.007 18:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
  - Sorry I didn't make myself clear. The lede is meant to summarise the text in the body, and stands in isolation. It is not meant to supply "new" information – stuff that isn't in the body.
    Detailed in the body, we know that Moore researched European and then specifically Spanish flora for years, thus can claim a certain expertise. Nothing is mentioned about Falklands, or South Atlantic or Antarctica until the bottom of the article, where it is stated he had a species of Falkland plant named after him. In the last section, we learn that wrote a book about the flora of the Falklands. Fine. But we only have a beginning and an endpoint. We have a collection of disparate facts. I would assume that European flora is somewhat different to that of the Falklands. So this expert in European fauna seems to have "suddenly" decided to write a book about the Falklands, with apparently no grounding whatsoever. I'm sure that it's not sudden at all. You need to at least make that connection of how he came to acquire his expertise in Falklands' flora, otherwise the MoD could have found any expert in European flora to help plan the assault on the occupied islands. I would suggest that you reconciled the facts by adding a short phrase like: "from [start date] to [end date], he conducted field work in the Falkland Islands to research for his book...", with relevant sourcing, of course. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 09:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
    - That's the problem, looking for sources, I used all that I found. The main one was the Telegraph one, and I added all the info from that, but I can't find any other reasonable source saying that. Mat ty.007 17:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, I see you've been having some problems. There's actually enough information with which to derive a time line of his activity on the Falklands etc. I've made some changes to the article, and I'm now satisfied with it. Hope that helps. Now needs a wrap-up review.
Suggest Alt1:

... that botanist David Moore advised the British Ministry of Defence in their plan to regain the Falkland Islands?
-- Ohc ^¡digame! 02:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a better hook. Tony (talk) 06:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I must agree with the new hook too. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 18:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

ALT1 hook needs reviewing as part of wrap-up review; struck original hook as ALT1 is clearly preferred. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- The ALT itself is a copyedited version of the hook that I feel poses no problems, but because I rewrote parts of the article and interpolated a time line, I'd like for someone to make sure I did not commit original research. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 15:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

ALT1 is interesting, accurate and cited in the article. The concerns raised have been addressed; the article as it stands is well-written and cohesive. I've done a few spot checks for accuracy, and for copyvio/close paraphrasing. Everything checks out; good to go. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)