Template:Did you know nominations/International Institute for Species Exploration

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 PFHLai (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

International Institute for Species Exploration, Dracaena kaweesakii, Liropus minusculus, Spiculosiphon oceana, Penicillium vanoranjei

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

)

... that the Top 10 New Species of the past year include a 40 foot (12 m) tall tree (pictured), a crustacean that looks like a skeleton, a protist that acts like a sponge, and a fungus named after the King of the Netherlands?

Reviewed: Lo Nuestro Award for Tropical Album of the Year, Rupert Lycett Green, Henry Dunker, Lo Nuestro Award for Video of the Year, The Boat Race 1978
Comment: ~~I'll probably add a couple more articles to the hook over the next 48 hours~~ Done now.

5x expanded by ThaddeusB (talk). Self nominated at 14:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC).

Yikes a quintuple! Is this a record? I'll have to do five separate reviews for this, then a joint one for the hook, if that's OK. This may be a long task, so please forgive me if I do some of it today and a bit more tomorrow. First up: QPQ is OK (or should I wind you up and ask for 5 QPQs? Only joking - you must be as exhausted as I'm going to be when I've reviewed this lot, haha). --Storye book (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It actually will require 5 QPQs, but no worry I'll get them done and address your concerns within the next couple days. Thanks for you thorough reviews. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries - this nom will get there eventually. Meanwhile I'm going to have to check out whether exceptions are made for multiple noms where the hook is over the 200-character limit. Your hook is currently 225 characters according to this tool. (Ping BlueMoonset: advice please?) If you decide to shorten it, ThaddeusB, please write separate ALTs, so that we can still refer back to the original if necessary. I'll try to get the other two article reviews done today. Possible ideas for shorter version: "40ft (12m) tree"; "skeleton-like crustacean"; "fungus named after the Dutch King"--Storye book (talk) 09:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:DYKSG#C3 addresses the multiple hook length issue: basically, you only count one of the bold article hooks toward the 200 characters, and the remaining ones don't count. I typically count the longest one and not the rest; here, since the full hook total is 210 characters excluding "(pictured)" (remember, the initial "... " is not counted), it will be well within bounds once four of the five hooks are excluded. Also, as WP:DYKSG#H4 makes clear, the QPQ requirement is article for article, so as ThaddeusB notes, five QPQ reviews will be required. This is not a record; we've had dozens in a single nomination, which is an incredible strain and—I feel—an imposition on DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you BlueMoonset. Much appreciated.--Storye book (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The hook record is 54 believe it or not. My personal record is 6. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

QPQ

QPQ (review). 3 done and accepted. Expander/nominator has offered to do 2 more QPQs, which are pending.--Storye book (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@ ThaddeusB. Thank you for doing the third QPQ. But, ahem, that ALT in the Henry Dunker nom template is not a tweak; a tweak is e.g. an extra comma or adding "(pictured)". If you add extra stuff it's another ALT and needs another reviewer, because if your non-tweak is challenged you waste even more time waiting for the next reviewer. Your new ALT checks out OK, so no harm done and I'll accept it as QPQ this time - but no more "tweaks" in the next two QPQs, please? Thanks, and keep up your (otherwise) excellent work. --Storye book (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It would presumably count as a review for QPQ purposes either way, but no problem on the no tweaks thing... If you don't mind, go ahead and an a check to the review in question to prevent anyone wasting time questioning it since you already double checked the new hook. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@ ThaddeusB A QPQ has to be a valid one, otherwise the work of our admin guys would be doubled, instead of being supported. I have confirmed your ALT1 for Henry Dunker. Thank you for your patience in this - we'll get through it! --Storye book (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

QPQs done; I will address the other concerns shortly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, ThaddeusB. I confirm all QPQs done. --Storye book (talk) 12:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Article 1: International Institute for Species Exploration

Article 1. Review for International Institute for Species Exploration. Expansion new enough (for 23 May) and long enough. No disambig links found. Objectively-written text, fully cited and with no NPOV problems. Issues: (1.1) All ext. links working except citation #1 which does not work. (1.2) I have checked all ext links for sources of copyvio or close paraphrasing: Phrases duplicated from citation #3: "in a cave on santa catalina off the coast of southern california", "produces a sheet like extra cellular matrix that may", "in the lukina jama trojama caves of western croatia", "in the cloud forests of the andes mountains". From citation #5: "pigmentation giving it a ghost like appearance". Citation #6: "planet earth is home to 8 7 million species scientists estimate".--Storye book (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Most of these are location names, so WP:LIMITED definitely applies. None-the-less, I tweaked them all. The last one is the name of the article cited and wasn't actually used in the text. A dead EL is not really an issue - it presumably worked when it was cited (before I worked on the article). --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

All issues resolved for Article 1. --Storye book (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Article 2: Dracaena kaweesakii

Article 2. Review for Dracaena kaweesakii. Image for hook and article is free. Expansion 26 May is new enough (for 23 May) and long enough. No disambig links. All ext. links work OK. Objectively-written, neutral and fully-cited. Issues: (2.1) Re close paraphrasing: Duplication found from source citation #2 and #3: ~~"sword shaped leaves with white edges".~~ (2.2) The word "popular" is discouraged in WP as a weasel word. I think it's OK here, but to prevent time-wasting hassle let's change it to something like "much-used", "used extensively" or similar? --Storye book (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Both wordings adjusted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Issue 2.2 is resolved. Re 2.1: I am guessing that "sword shaped leaves with white edges" is an definitive scientific description of this plant, so that we can't really change it; it is safer to put it in quote marks. I'm saying this because I think "sword-shaped leaf", also called ensiform, may be one of those categories of leaf-shapes, e.g. "pinnate leaf". Sorry I have only just realised this. I have reverted this correction myself, because I requested it in error. --Storye book (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Article 3: Liropus minusculus

Article 3. Review for Liropus minusculus. Article created 29 May (new enough for 29 May) and long enough. No disambig links. All ext. links work fine. No close paraphrasing or copyvio found, re citation sources. The text is written from an objective and neutral POV, and is fully cited. If this article had been a single nom, it would have passed (assuming the hook is OK). --Storye book (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Article 4: Spiculosiphon oceana

Article 4. Review for Spiculosiphon oceana. Article created 2 June (new enough for 29 May) and long enough. No disambig links found. External links work OK. All ext. links checked for copyvio or close paraphrasing and none found. Objectively-written and neutral text, all cited. The article lacks a taxobox (which the other species articles in this nom have) but this is not a DYK requirement. This would have passed as a single nom (assuming hook OK). --Storye book (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Article 5: Penicillium vanoranjei

Article 5. Review for Penicillium vanoranjei. Article created 30 May (new enough for 29 May) and long enough. No problems with disambig links or with external links. Issues: (5.1) ~~Duplicated phrases found: "to ascend to the throne of the netherlands" (citation #1); "named after queen victoria of the united kingdom" (citation #3)~~. (5.2) ~~Typos: "the research team who discovered it ~~remarked~~ called the color"; "The Penicillium species are not the first (to be named?) after royalty".~~--Storye book (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

All issues fixed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

All issues resolved for Article 5. --Storye book (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I did a partial review of the Penicillium article (just one of the 5). I found it to be new enough and long enough and adequately supplied with footnotes, and I found no instances of close paraphrasing. However, I have some concerns about content. The article has very little actual information about the organism; it's mostly about the name and the media attention that the name received. Given the emphasis on the name, I was surprised that some key aspects of the name aren't explained, including how the suffix vanoranjei relates to the king's name of Willem-Alexander (the answer is that the suffix is derived from "van Oranje" (of Orange), so the species name actually appears to refer to the royal family more than the king himself) and the fact that the other 4 related species were named for his family (Queen Máxima and Princesses Amalia, Alexia, and Ariane). On the science side, I found that the species wasn't actually "discovered" (although that's the word used in the press releases); instead, it seems that the scientists conducted morphologic and phylogenetic studies on fungi that were already known to science, and they were able to discriminate and describe five distinct "new" species based on their analysis. I think the article should be given some additional substance before it can be featured on the main page, and I'm not convinced that ~~either~~ "discovered" ~~or "named after the King of the Netherlands"~~ are the right words to use in the hook. --Orlady (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@ Thaddeus B. Please kindly update Article 5 as per Orlady's review above. ~~The link for this article in the hook will need to be adjusted to something like: "fungus named after the King of the Netherlands' family" (the multiple hook length rule for permits this)~~. --Storye book (talk) 10:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

After sleeping on this, I believe the hook wording is OK, although I still don't like the emphasis on "discovery" in the article. The sources all say that the species is named for Willem-Alexander, so it's OK to say "King of the Netherlands" in the hook. My concern about the name is that the article should include some indication as to how "vanoranjei" relates to "Willem-Alexander". --Orlady (talk) 13:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Summary as of 24 June: Let's get this nom wrapped up now. (a) In article text, please mention connection between orange colour of fungus and King of Netherlands' family name van Oranje (of Orange) and cite source. (b) In article text, please replace "discovered" with "distinguished (or identified) new separate species within known fungi" or "described", as appropriate. Around 1990 I dived the Sea of Cortez as part of a support team for a bunch of Smithsonian scientists who were writing a new fish book and they were after "new" sea creatures for it. We were amused to hear them say that no creature/plant exists to science until it has been written up, photographed, published and peer-reviewed. The shorthand term for this process is "described". This situation pertains, no matter how many ordinary folk have been observing these creatures/plants for thousands of years. So we spotted the stuff first, put it in a bucket and handed it over, they described it, and the blurb on the new fish book no doubt added the misinformation that they (not we) discovered it. Since this is an article about science, we must play the game. (c) See Orlady's comment above for other scientific material which you might possibly add to the article. --Storye book (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. I had previously read the actual paper and included most of the non-super technical stuff. I looked again and found a few more things to add. I also changed "discovered" to "identified" and made some other tweaks as per the above requests. Let me know if concerns remain. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks OK. --Orlady (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Hook

Hook (review). The image is free. The normal limit is 200 characters but this quintuple hook has 225 characters. ~~I do not know yet whether~~ 225 is admissable for a quintuple, ~~but I have suggested ideas above for a shortened version (if all this advice were accepted, the result would be 192 characters).~~ All of the hook is supported by this source which is cited in all five articles. The hook is repeated and cited to that source in Articles 2-5. In Article 1, three of the species are listed under their Latin names, and the fourth species is listed under its English name "Kaweesak's dragon tree" (this is the species pictured). Article 1 says that all four species were listed in the past year, all supported by citation #3. Summary: (a) All five articles contain the hook, fully referenced to online citation #3. ~~(b) The hook is too long by single-nom standards, but it could be shortened to below 200 characters.~~--Storye book (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

All issues with the hook are resolved. --Storye book (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

General comments

Conclusion: Articles 3 and 4 are OK. Articles 1, 2 and 5 have issues, the main ones being that some phrases need to be re-written to avoid copyvio or close paraphrasing. The hook checks out OK; ~~although it has an excuse for being too long, it could almost certainly be shortened to less than 200 characters.~~--Storye book (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Please help us to keep this page easy to navigate in: Please write individual comments under individual QPQ/Article/Hook sections above, to prevent total chaos in this quintuple nom. Please write general and combined comments below. Thank you for your co-operation. --Storye book (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Issues update as of 18 June: ~~(a) 2 more QPQs to do.~~ (b) ~~Issues 1.1. and 1.2 for article 1.~~ (c) ~~Issues 2.1~~ ~~and 2.2~~ for article 2. (d) ~~Issues 5.1 and 5.2 for article 5.~~ Everything else is OK. --Storye book (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe all should be OK now - let me know if any issues remain that I overlooked. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, ThaddeusB. All issues resolved, ~~except please see issue 2.1.~~ Nearly there now! --Storye book (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Orlady for your additional review of Article 5. --Storye book (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Issues update as of 24 June: @ ThaddeusB. I have reverted the "sword-shaped leaves" edit in Article 2 myself, because I originally requested the edit and I was wrong. My apologies. But we now have extra work to do. Please would you kindly adjust Article 5 according to Orlady's review above. Thank you for your patience. --Storye book (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

All issues resolved. Good to go. --Storye book (talk) 06:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)