Template:Did you know nominations/Torreya clarnensis

 The following is an archived discussion of Torreya clarnensis's DYK nomination. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page; such as this archived nomination"s (talk) page, the nominated article's (talk) page, or the Did you know (talk) page. Unless there is consensus to re-open the archived discussion here. No further edits should be made to this page. See the talk page guidelines for (more) information.

The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC).

Torreya clarnensis

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the type specimen of the extinct nutmeg yew Torreya clarnensis is located in Florida?

• Reviewed: Banner Mountain, Wolf Creek (Nevada County, California)
• Comment: See page 31 of Manchester

Created by Kevmin (talk). Self nominated at 04:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC).

• New enough, long enough, and reliably sourced, but the hook is perhaps a little misleading - it reads to me as if the type specimen was found in Florida. Perhaps the following alternative would be clearer? Prioryman (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• ALT1: ... that the type specimen of the extinct nutmeg yew Torreya clarnensis was discovered in Oregon?

I didn't think it was misleading, and avoided past tense structuring and the wording "found in" specifically for that reason. I went with current tense and "located in" to indicate I was talking of the type specimens current placement. Given that the holotype is part of the University of Florida collections, that is where the type specimen is located now.--Kevmin § 15:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, that's fair enough; I'm happy to go with your original hook. Thanks for the explanation. I'll give it the green tick now: Prioryman (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• peanut gallery comment: I vaguely know enough to understand that yew trees grow within forests of other trees in Oregon (because there is some precious medicine produced from yew trees, hence people tramping thru the Oregon forests to collect material), and would be mildly surprised/interested to hear a DYK fact that the specimen is located in Florida. Not many readers would see a surprise in that. I don't see any good way to suggest in the DYK a usual Oregon-association and then also surprise by a Florida connection. So I don't see any specific improvement to the DYK, but I do think the surprise here is a bit subtle. I agree, the DYK as it is, is okay. --doncram 23:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)