Template:Did you know nominations/Digitalis thapsi
- 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 BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Digitalis thapsi
[edit]... that once when Digitalis thapsi was artificially propagated till five or six generations, it completely changed into Digitalis purpurea?
Created/expanded by Sainsf (talk). Self nom at 05:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The hook fact does not have an inline citation immediately after the sentence it is contained in, and indeed does not match the article in key details. There is no indication that "once" is appropriate, changes were observed after five to six generations, and subsequently (article doesn't say how long, but the implication is that more generations were involved) completely changed. Under the circumstances, this hook needs to be adjusted and its source(s) clarified. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
- The source is only the book citation following it, and as for the adjustment of the hook, could you suggest a better way of writing it? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have to confess I'm very dubious about this hook as written: it's based on a report from an 18th-century botanist, Joseph Gottlieb Kölreuter, which was challenged by Lindley, a digitalis expert, shortly thereafter, but conditionally accepted ("may probably be trusted") by Darwin. However, the report is over 200 years old: if it could be reproduced scientifically, I would think it would have by now, and thapsi and purpurea would now be more closely linked rather than different species. Beyond that, the propagation in the source is four or five generations of artificial fertilization to assume characteristics of purpurea, not five or six, "& at last was completely converted into it" at some later point. However, I think this information can be used if you bring Darwin himself into it as the person who reiterated Kölreuter's assertion, which also has the advantage of making it more "hooky", since tons of people will recognize Darwin. (I've modified the text of the article so it now mentions Darwin by name.) Perhaps something like:
ALT1: ... that Charles Darwin accepted a botanist's report that Digitalis thapsi, when artificially propagated for enough generations, completely changed into D. purpurea?
- Let me know what you think. —BlueMoonset (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I have to confess I'm very dubious about this hook as written: it's based on a report from an 18th-century botanist, Joseph Gottlieb Kölreuter, which was challenged by Lindley, a digitalis expert, shortly thereafter, but conditionally accepted ("may probably be trusted") by Darwin. However, the report is over 200 years old: if it could be reproduced scientifically, I would think it would have by now, and thapsi and purpurea would now be more closely linked rather than different species. Beyond that, the propagation in the source is four or five generations of artificial fertilization to assume characteristics of purpurea, not five or six, "& at last was completely converted into it" at some later point. However, I think this information can be used if you bring Darwin himself into it as the person who reiterated Kölreuter's assertion, which also has the advantage of making it more "hooky", since tons of people will recognize Darwin. (I've modified the text of the article so it now mentions Darwin by name.) Perhaps something like:
- Nice alteration, I approve of it. The fact must be true alright, as it is published in a book of the well-known Darwin. Sadly there is no other source, but though the report is much old, surely the science could not have changed. I believe this could make an interesting fact.
- Well, I decided to add an image to go with the hook. I did not want that before, but, reading Nyttend's comment above, I have found two nice photos, chose the best one:
- Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's true that Darwin accepted it, but even he wasn't sure: note the "probably". Any number of things could have gone awry with Kölreuter's experiments: he could have used the wrong pollen one year, a bee could have gotten to one of the thapsi flowers with purpurea pollen before the artificial propagation (pollenation by hand) was done... the possibilities are many. Kölreuter states it as a fact, but it could be an incorrect (false) fact. I'm not nearly so sure as you are. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Needs a reviewer to check the ALT1 hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
- I am not too happy with ALT1 as the article states "a report that was considered "probably" trustworthy by Charles Darwin" which is rather different from Charles Darwin accepting a botanist's report. Why not go for something completely different such as - Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- ALT2 ... that the pharmocological products derived from the Spanish foxglove are up to three times more potent than those obtained from the common foxglove?
- Thanks a lot! I was looking for another fact, and you have helped much. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Article is a five-fold expansion and is new enough and long enough. The hook is appropriately sourced. Going with ALT2 then. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
