Template:Did you know nominations/Lecythis ampla

Lecythis ampla

 * ... that the fruits of the Lecythis ampla tree resemble little wooden pots with lids?
 * Reviewed: Martial (horse)

Created/expanded by Cwmhiraeth (talk). Self nom at 11:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg There seem to be two problems here. First, I don't find the hook (which appears in the article in the "description" section) to be adequately sourced by the source for that section (Flores). There is nothing in Flores about a resemblance to pots, unless you interpret that as being the meaning of the far more technical language in Flores that the fruit "is a dry pyxidium or circumscissile capsule, woody and ovoid or oblong" or maybe of the later and much more brief "urn-like" which doesn't say anything about lids. Second, and more seriously, I think the article as written (at least in the description section) is much too closely paraphrased from Flores. Below is a more detailed analysis:
 * Our article: "Lecythis ampla is a large tree growing to 45 metres (148 ft) in height. The straight trunk is up to 1.6 metres (5 ft 3 in) diameter at breast height and has no branches on its lower two thirds." Source [3]: "Lecythis ampla is a large tree 45 m in height and 1.0 to 1.6 m d.b.h. The bole is straight and cylindrical and lacks branches in the basal two-thirds."
 * Our article, next sentence: "The crown of the tree is broad and spherical." Source [3], skipping one sentence: "The crown is branched and spherical. "
 * Our article: "The tree is deciduous with the leaves appearing just before the flowers." Source [3], a few sentences ahead: "The tree is deciduous and most leaves abscise before the flowering period."
 * Our article: "The bark is greyish brown and vertically furrowed". Source [3] (returning to immediately after the sentence about the crown): "The bark is gray (grayish brown in shady places) and has many sharp vertical fissures."
 * Our article: "The flowers appear in the rainy season between May and July." Source [3], somewhat later: "Annual flowering occurs during the rainy season, May through July."
 * Our article: "They grow on short pedicels and are hermaphrodite. The calyx has six lobes and the corolla has six broad elliptical petals, either pink or pale mauve, but fading to white as the flower ages." Source [3], skipping a bit more: "The flower is hermaphrodite and zygomorphic. The flower’s calyx has six wide ovate lobules; the corolla has six wide elliptic petals, pink or pale purple, fading to white after the anthesis."
 * Our article: "Pollination is carried out by bees which collect the pollen." Source [3]: "Pollination is carried out by medium to large euglossine bees. They collect pollen"
 * So I think it is not ready for DYK at this time. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The hook is sourced from the description plus the illustration which shows it looks like a little pot. Other sources call the tree the monkeypot but I found that name was given to several closely related trees. With regard to the sentences you use to illustrate the close paraphrasing mentioned above, I don't believe they are close paraphrasing at all. If describing a tree I have to use the source material to provide the information I need to include (and by the way, "abscise" means fall off so that is a particularly bad example). Another opinion on this issue would be welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think a couple of these instances are "too close" (particularly "pollination is carried out"), but for the most part the specific wording seems sufficiently different from the source to avoid issues of copyvio. However, I am concerned that the article mistakenly states that the leaves appear just before the flowers, when the source says that the tree drops its old leaves shortly before the flowers appear, and that the new leaves and flowers emerge pretty much contemporaneously. Also, I'm concerned that the article focuses so strongly on the highly technical details of the anatomy of the flowers (albeit with much less technical wording than the source used) and says so little about other aspects of the tree. A more balanced description of the tree is needed. I added a bit of detail about the habitats where this tree grows, but more information on its ecological aspects would be expected. The fruit, which remains on the tree for 10 months and provides food for wildlife, seems a lot more important to people than the relatively inconspicuous flowers. The Google translation of the Spanish-language Costa Rican source mentioned the tree's conservation status and it had some interesting information about animals and humans that use the fruits; those are two types of topics that I would expect to see in an article about this tree. I found that a lot of the published material about this tree uses older species names (such as L. costaricensis); searches on those terms would yield some good info. --Orlady (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have edited and expanded the article and I hope addressed the above concerns. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of it's a little close, but I think that's fairly reasonable for a single-sourced botanical description. I usually try to use more than one flora when I write plant articles de novo to avoid this, but it's not always possible. Trying to preserve the proper technical meaning of the botanical diagnosis will usually require somewhat closer paraphrasing than the average article; most of the examples above don't really bother me, in that light. Choess (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am still not happy with the similarity of wording but the consensus above seems to be running against me. I'm not comfortable passing this myself, but I don't think its review should be held up indefinitely either. Perhaps some other reviewer would like to make a verdict? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In view of the reviewer's continuing concern, I have removed a lot of the detail in the description. I think this is a pity and find it frustrating to be unable to use the decent material in the source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks again for working on this. In exchange for the loss of detail, I think the rewording has also significantly improved the readability of the article for non-technical readers. Anyway, after these changes, I don't see a reason to hold this up any longer. Good to go. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)