Template:Did you know nominations/Carduus argentatus


 * 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 Fuebaey (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Carduus argentatus

 * ... that the 1801 edition of The Encyclopaedia Londinensis volume III makes note of certain "remarkable" features of plumeless silver thistle (pictured)?
 * Reviewed: Afternoon

Created by Gaff (talk). Self nominated at 15:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg The trouble with this article is that I don't think the creator understands the botanical terms he uses. For example, where the source states "Flowers: Pink, spinescent bracts", the article states "Flowers, in bloom April and May, are spinescent bracts, pink to lavender in color" which is rubbish (the bracts are the spiny green modified leaves underneath the flower). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Copy edit made. The article creator is a physician, not a botanist: hence familiar with many anatomical terms, but alas, not to perfection...  The remainder of the botanical terms seem straightforward.  Many thanks! &mdash; Gaff   ταλκ  15:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What I like about this article and why I chose it for a DYK: there is a nice photo and the obscure encyclopedia entry with the word "remarkable" in reference to a thistle has a certain captivating irony... &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ  15:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I have done some copyediting on this article and a new reviewer is now needed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks for those copyedits, Cwmhiraeth; it looks much better for them. Sourcing is fine, the article is new enough (as of the date of this nomination) and the hook is properly cited in the article. QPQ has also been done. Prioryman (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)