Template:Did you know nominations/Corsia

Corsia

 * ... that Corsia (pictured), a little studied plant genus, was first described in 1877 by Odoardo Beccari?
 * Reviewed: Dakshayagnam (1938 film), Tata Jagriti Yatra, Under the Tree (film), Garin Nugroho, Dronningegården, Chairil Anwar, Geomagnetic pole, IRAS 17163-3907, Goethe–Schiller Monument (Syracuse)

Created/expanded by Vibhijain (talk). Self nom at 16:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Article needs a good copyedit, a real good copyedit. Note "parasite and parasitize" in the lead. I don't understand what this means, "Corsia Cornuta and Corsia Clypeata are the only two known types of chromosomes numbers." Chromosomes numbers? "Only rarely designed flower stalks grow overground" is awkward--grow is the verb, of course, but what is the relation between "rarely" and "designed"? Note the incorrect parallel in the last three elements of "[the] root system is also whitish, weakly branched and widely spreads in all directions." The sentence beginning "Sprout from the..." is both fragmented and a run-on. "The uniformly distributed through the stem are..." is ungrammatical. I could go on (but I won't) or I could correct, but I'm not a scholar of parasite plants. The article needs this throughout, from top to bottom. Also, the hook is not verified and it needs to be. Finally, the article is long enough; the image is licensed. Since all but one of the sources are offline I cannot vouch for proper paraphrasing etc., so we'll have to assume good faith (which I would, given the mechanical problems signaled above). The hook isn't terribly exciting--I suggest sticking in parasite and New Guinea, for instance. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Did a copy-edit, hope it makes the article fine. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 15:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg As someone who sometimes writes articles on plants, I do not think the article should be on DYK (or Wikipedia ?) in its present state. I have found a source from which a reasonable description of the plants and their flowers could be written, but without access to the offline sources used by the author I would hate to do any further copyediting of the original material because I cannot understand the meaning of quite a bit of the text, as mentioned by Drmies above. I could rewrite some sections but I think we should give DYK a miss on this one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It does look pretty technical, but I'd expect that for Corsia, as few people deal with the genus. If you could be specific about which sections you think need rewriting / citing, then I might eb able to do so.  I have several off-line sources on monocot morphology that I could use perhaps to salvage the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * User:Rkitko, User:Melburnian and I have improved the article somewhat after EncycloPetey pointed it out (at least fact-wise, might need more copyediting). I've clarified the chromosome and parasite bit. However, like Cwmhiraeth, I do not have access to most of the sources used. It still desperately needs a Taxonomy section, especially since it mentions sections Sessilis and Unguiculatis out of nowhere. Vaibhav Jain, if you still have access to them could you write the section or at least provide them to others who can? In addition, the following source from our article on Corsiaceae could also be useful for a section on phylogeny (which seems to be pretty controversial for Burmanniaceae and Corsiaceae):




 * I would also suggest changing the hook to something more exciting. Maybe its habits as a parasite of fungi? That can be sourced easily enough.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   04:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ack!! I just noticed that the article references The Plant List for its species listings, which is a big no-no. The Plant List is bascially a data-dump with no cross-checking yet done for must of the data that was dumped into it.  For monocot taxa, the World Checklists at Kew would be a much better source.  I've already updated the list at Wikispecies, so it's a simple matter to correct the listings here.  I'll do that now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My fault. :P Sorry for that.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   08:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What's going on here? Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Article needs to be rechecked for requirements. IMO, it's fairly DYK-compliant now. Proposed alt hook below.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   06:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that Corsia (pictured), is a flowering plant that parasitizes fungi?
 * I've just had a look and its missing a fair volume of referencing. There remains seven completely uncited paragraphs. Miyagawa   (talk)  17:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Agreed. Referencing issues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg If referencing is the only problem, I can probably fix that quickly. Why did it take a month before anyone pointed this out?  If there are any other problems, please point them out now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there were plenty of problems with the article; perhaps it wasn't completely ready. No need to shout. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg prose looks good. AGF on sources I can't read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: maybe ALT1 - that Corsia (pictured) is a genus of small plants which lack chlorophyll and parasitize fungi for nutrition?