Template:Did you know nominations/Platanthera azorica

Scope

Platanthera azorica

 * ... that Platanthera azorica was "rediscovered" in 2013 on a single volcanic ridge on the central Azores island of São Jorge?

Created by Agyle (talk). Nominated by Tentinator (talk) at 20:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg enough, and long enough with the numerous quotes removed. I wouldn't mind seeing the species list at the top be removed from the leade and converted to fuller prose in a "description" section. Im also not sure where the quotes fall in the spectrum of acceptability.-- Kev  min  § 23:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I've removed the species list from the lead and removed some of the quotations.   Tentinator   07:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I support this after a couple of fixes: 1) I find the last sentence of the lead cryptic. 2) Because PeerJ uses CC-BY 3.0 license, it would be easy to add a picture (or pictures) to this article. 3) The species list should start with this species, both because it is the focal species here and because of alphabetic order. Micromesistius (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Done, done and done.    Tentinator    09:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg With the arguments outlined by Kev  and fixes above, I support! However, I suggest minor revisions to the hook: ALT1: ... that orchid Platanthera azorica was rediscovered in 2013 on a single volcanic ridge on the island of São Jorge?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micromesistius (talk • contribs) 11:16, 19 December 2013‎


 * Symbol question.svg I have a problem with the statement in the Origins section that reads "The flowers of these new species are much smaller than their likely ancestor." While this may be true of the other two Planthera species, the newest identified, the currently named azorica, is said to be significantly larger, and indeed may have resumed the size of its ancestor—the exact size isn't clear, but the source doesn't rule out that possibility. Since the article is about the current azorica, care needs to be taken that the primary focus and facts reflect it rather than the other two species. As for ALT1, I think I'd recommend retaining "Azores" in the hook: people will recognize that name, but not São Jorge. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ALT2 ... that orchid Platanthera azorica was rediscovered in 2013 on a single volcanic ridge on the central Azores island of São Jorge?   Tentinator    12:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg While ALT2 looks okay, nothing has been done do address the primary issue raised above, which is with that statement in the Origins section and the article focus. It's been nine days with no action on these points, and this article cannot be approved until these are taken care of. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I've removed the statement and description section which should really be in the genus article (Platanthera).   Tentinator    13:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * But you've also removed the best description of the Platanthera azorica itself in the process, including its original discovery. Some of the other material in the article seems to depend on information that's now gone. I can't tell whether this is true of the final paragraph of the article, which, as I read it, does not fully make sense: there's something missing in the explanation of threat levels and having them overturned (in favor of what new levels?). There are other statements without information to anchor them, such as "Hochstetter's earlier expedition": did he make a lot of these, or was this a single expedition that was earlier than the contemporary one(s)? Furthermore, Hochstetter has been set adrift: he's used in the common name and that expedition, but there's nothing else left in the article now. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I have added this icon, as on reflection I think the article has been sufficiently undermined by the latest deletions that it doesn't cover the topic in sufficient depth any longer, and needs to be improved before another reviewer looks at it. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

As it stands now the article feels like an overview article of the Azorian orchids as a whole rather then an article on the species itself. I think serious revision and expansion is needed.-- Kev min  § 20:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)