Talk:Helianthus devernii

Working on description
@Alalch E. I got access to the BioOne digital library today. I've started checking over the information referenced in the paper and so far it has checked out, no problems. I've also started adding a description to the article. Thanks for letting me know about this article. Interesting to know about this plant. 🌿 Mt B o t a n y (talk) 18:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for responding to my request and making such a big difference here. Interesting plant, yeah. —Alalch E. 18:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @MtBotany Also this is a good DYK candidate, and probably needs just a little more work to ensure it meets WP:DYK (some of the information relating to its conservation status is uncited). —Alalch E. 19:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Alalch E., but I had some trouble at DYK. Got a bit stressed and noped out for a while so while objectively it would be not big thing to jump back in and do some reviews it is a bit of mental block for me right now. I love working on articles but get a bit twitchy when I have even a self created deadline. 🌿 Mt B o t a n y (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Alalch E. and @MtBotany, sorry I totally missed that you discussed DYK nomination here. I just nominated the article. Feel free to add the hooks you would have preferred for the nomination. Apologies, --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 04:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. I am fine with the article being nominated, I just cannot do the process myself and might need to take a break from watching if I get stressed. @Classicwiki 🌿 Mt B o t a n y (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @UtherSRG, the edits you made to the plant description by removing the parenthesis and adding the scientific terms to the sentences make them more difficult to read and quite awkward. If you are sure that it would be better without parenthetical scientific terms I'll rewrite the description to link the terms using their plain English equivalents, but I think having the scientific terms adds to the educational value of the article and would prefer to put it back the way it was before I continued writing the description. 🌿 Mt B o t a n y (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Using scientific terminology is fine. Usually, folks will write something using scientific terminology, with the link, and put the meaning in parenthesis. We then typically remove the parenthesis, because the meaning isn't needed as it is given at the destination of the link. You, on the other hand, did it backwards, putting the the terms in the parenthesis. I did my best to massage it into how it would be the other way, but without the parens. If you want to write it better, please do, but there's no need to get rid of the technical terms. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I did not express myself very well. I've edited the page to show how I would have finished off the description. I think that a relatively plain English description is best. I put the botanical jargon in parenthesis to teach and make it available to more botanically educated audience members, but to de-emphasize it. I've also made the leaf lengths centimeters rather than millimeters as I think that is easier to understand. 🌿 Mt B o t a n y (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The idea is to not use parentheticals as they break up the flow of reading, especially when using multiple parentheticals. If you don't want the technical terms, I suggest linking the common words to the technical term. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, the cvt template allows folks who don't understand metric to understand the sizes used. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a contradiction there. Convert or cvt also break up the flow of the article because they put the figures in parentheticals. So which is it? Do parentheticals break up the flow too much and should be avoided or are they needed?
 * This is, after all, a science article and science articles per MOS:METRIC, should be in metric measures. The average person will be equally mystified by both the metric and US traditional measures in 4.1–5.6 cm.
 * To your earlier point, I'll produce what I think would be a better plain English version without the parentheticals since you think they're bad. 🌿 Mt B o t a n y (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Take a look at B-grade or higher plant articles so that you can see what I'm asking you to shoot for. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why not B-class now? The article reflects the sourcing available at this time. Don't you think it's fine? —Alalch E. 11:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, the cvt thing hasn't been resolved. I thought it was. —Alalch E. 12:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)