Template:Did you know nominations/Cyrtostachys renda

Cyrtostachys renda

 * ... that the Red Sealing Wax Palm (pictured), a popular ornamental plant, has a protected conservation status under Indonesian law?
 * Reviewed: Papa Cristo's
 * Comment: If this image is unacceptable, other images of the Red Sealing Wax Palm are available in the article and in its Wikimedia Commons category.

Created by Tucoxn (talk). Self nominated at 01:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg Date verified (moved to mainspace on Apr 14), length is fine, image is used in the article and appropriately licensed, and the offline refs for the hook fact could be accepted AGF. However, are we sure that the protected status is still valid? According to the article, the IUCN removed its protected status in 2000, so isn't it possible that the Indonesian government may have done the same in the following years? You could clarify that, or we could go for something like the following:
 * ALT1: ... that the Red Sealing Wax Palm (pictured), a popular ornamental plant, was included in the IUCN Red List in 1995 and removed in 2000?
 * ALT2: ... that in 1999, the government of Indonesia implemented a law to protect the Red Sealing Wax Palm (pictured), a popular ornamental plant?
 * Chamal T •C 05:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The indonesian legislation is also cited as being in force as of the 2005 publication of Didik Widyatmoko's "Population status, demography and habitat preferences of the threatened lipstick palm Cyrtostachys renda Blume in Kerumutan Reserve, Sumatra" in Acta Oecologica (reference #26 in the article). The specific information is on page 109 of that article, left column, toward the bottom of the only full paragraph in that column. Widyatmoko was living in Indonesia at the time of his research for this article. I agree, however, that the source of this verification is about 9 years old. Somehow I was able to download that article. If this is not acceptable verification of the legislation, I can accept ALT1. -   t  u coxn \ talk 06:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I don't have a problem with the article as the facts there are well referenced and accurate as far as I can see – it says the legislation was put in place in 1999 but doesn't make a specific statement on whether or not the law still stands or not. Hovewer, the hook does say that and that is what I'm unsure of. I think this is just be a problem with the wording or the way I understand it, so I'll leave it to another reviewer to check if this is OK. Chamal T •C 06:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I will accept ALT1. -   t  u coxn \ talk 06:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svgAlt1 verified, article length, newness and prose are good, image cc3, Everything seems good now.-- Kev min  § 19:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)