Template:Did you know nominations/Tree
- 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 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Tree
[edit]- Reviewed: Not a self-nomination
Improved to Good Article status by Chiswick Chap (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 20:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC).
Recently promoted to a Good Article, so there should be no problem at all in the article. No need of QPQ, but the only problem (technically not problem) is the given hook, which I don't see it interesting. Tree is the main article, it should have an interesting hook which attracts people, like trees aging, tallest tree, trees existence age, etc. I think there could be several interesting hooks about trees, so you need alternate hooks...like 2 or 3. Then I'll decide which to accept. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 10:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I found the ALT2 interesting, but I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the article. Please find an interesting hook from the article or mention this hook in the article with sources and I'll approve it then. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 19:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, the section Superlative trees mentions the tallest known specimen on earth as being "115.66 metres (379.5 ft) tall", and "the tallest known broad-leaved tree is a mountain ash (Eucalyptus regnans) growing in Tasmania with a height of 97 m". I suggest to call these observations "in the order of 100 m". Oceanh (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was thinking of that, wanted to heard it from you. So the second tallest is currently in growth, which means it would be in order of 100 sometimes, huh? --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 01:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, the section Superlative trees mentions the tallest known specimen on earth as being "115.66 metres (379.5 ft) tall", and "the tallest known broad-leaved tree is a mountain ash (Eucalyptus regnans) growing in Tasmania with a height of 97 m". I suggest to call these observations "in the order of 100 m". Oceanh (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, the alt2 hook is not based on speculation about further growth. Another hook on height, ALT2B, is suggested below. Oceanh (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- ALT2B: ... that the tallest known tree is more than 115 meters tall?
ALT2B is Good to be appeared at Main Page. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 17:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- No, the alt2 hook is not based on speculation about further growth. Another hook on height, ALT2B, is suggested below. Oceanh (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Reopened, as discussed at WT:DYK#Precision. Basically, the hook fact is in the article, but the source used for it gives a different figure. The difference isn't a lot, but there's no reason why the source and article shouldn't give the same. Fram (talk) 10:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
- My bad. I looked in the article and found the 115.66 meters figure in a source, so I changed the hook to be more precise when I moved it to prep. Now I don't see that figure in the source given at all, so I'm restoring approval for ALT2B as it was originally stated. Yoninah (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2014 (UTC)