Template:Did you know nominations/Salix arbusculoides

Salix arbusculoides, Salix richardsonii, Salix brachycarpa, Salix glauca, Salix hastata, Salix pulchra
Created/expanded by IceCreamAntisocial (talk). Nominated by PFHLai (talk) at 06:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ... that the peachleaf willow was used in traditional Eskimo medicine to treat skin sores and watery eyes?


 * ALT1 (6x hook)... that various willows, such as peachleaf willow, barren-ground willow, glaucous willow, Halberd willow, diamondleaf willow and woolly willow, are used by Native Americans for medicinal purposes, basket weaving, to make bows and arrows, and for building animal traps?  Created/expanded  by IceCreamAntisocial (talk) and Rcej (talk).  Nominated by PFHLai (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ALT2 (6x hook) ... that Native Americans used various parts of willow shrubs including the woolly, peachleaf, barren-ground, white, diamondleaf, and Halberd willow (pictured) to make medicines, weapons and animal traps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcej (talk • contribs) 08:09, 2012 January 27 (UTC)


 * I prefer Rcej's ALT2. --PFHLai (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol question.svg Dates are OK, the hook fact in ALT2 is properly supported by sources (but see below), the articles are well-supplied with footnotes, and the content is appropriately original in its wording. However, I am not convinced that the articles qualify for DYK on the basis of length. Most of these six articles are only minimally longer than 1500 characters (one of them is only 1502 characters, according to DYKcheck) and barely exceed "stub" class. In reading the six articles, I had the sense that I was reading the same article six times. (Some of the content, such as "This species is dioecious, with male and female reproductive parts on separate individuals. The inflorescence is a catkin.", is true of all members of the genus Salix, and some of the other article content about topics such as use as wildlife food and use by indigenous people is pretty much the same for all species in this group.) I believe a person would be hard-pressed to discuss the differences between these species on the basis of the articles, which is largely due to the fact that the species are very similar in some respects, but also because many of the characteristics discussed in the cited references are not documented in the articles. Before this goes to main-page DYK, I'd like to see some additional "meat" in the articles -- at a minimum, the creation of some topical subsections similar to those found in the articles Salix arctica and Liriodendron tulipifera. Subsections would help the reader find specific topics and would help both readers and contributors see which topics are not effectively covered in these articles. Additionally, the list of articles in the hook should be rearranged so that the first article on the list is one of the better-developed ones in the group (currently the most extensive article is Salix arbusculoides, peachleaf willow).
 * I have some further suggestions and concerns regarding the hook. First is that, because these are largely species of the tundra and taiga, the "Native Americans" who used these species are not necessarily the people discussed in the linked article Native Americans in the United States, but also include some Alaska native and Canadian peoples that are not included in that article. I don't know if there is a better article to link to. A second suggestion is that the hook ought to indicate that these are all willow shrub species of tundra, taiga, and alpine habitats (or say they are found in the North American arctic and subarctic). For me, that kind of additional specificity would make the hook more interesting. --Orlady (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I've notified the authors. Perhaps we can have 6 separate hooks? I have undone the striking off of the original hook for now. --PFHLai (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg The original hook, for S. arbusculoides only, checks out fine, and that article clearly meets the length criterion. --Orlady (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)