User talk:Ebertar

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Ectomycorrhiza, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! j⚛e deckertalk 22:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.


 * }

WP:DYK
Hey Ebertar. Looking at the impressive article you've written (and how new you are) I was wondering if you knew about and had considered doing a Did you know submission, so that the article is featured in the did you know section of the Main Page? It showcases new (posted to the article mainspace in the past five days) articles, so if you wanted to do one, you'd have to submit the entry by five days from the time the article was moved to the mainspace, or by June 1, 22:11 (UTC). What you would need to do is find what we call a "hook": an interesting (and well sourced) fact from the article that would go after "did you know that ..." (the whole statement should be under 200 characters of prose). If you supplied the hook, and wanted help with the nomination, I'd be glad to help out. Just thought you should know about the feature. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Great. There is a problem with that hook though. What a reviewer is looking for is to be able to go to the article and confirm that the statement in the hook is in the article and verified through an inline citation. What you've done here is summarize the concepts with new concepts. Persistent organic pollutants is not even mentioned by that title in the article and the section you pointed to doesn't speak about mineralization, even if that is the method by which the fungal symbiont blocks uptake of heavy metals (I'm not even sure if I got that right, which flags the problem). In short, it doesn't have to be word-for-word, but it needs to be clearly accessible so that readers and reviewers will be able to look at the hook, then go to a section pointed out to them in the article and determine, "yes, that fact is stated in the article, here, and is sourced through an inline citation".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Gotcha, so don't get more specific with the hook than the scope of the article allows; duly noted. Well, seeing as I like the way the hook is written, what if I slightly amend the article? Honestly, that section concerning the POPs could probably use a bit more clarification anyways. Now, the article specifically mentions POPs and mineralization (the things I was specifically getting at in the original hook). I think this also works better since the hook mentions a variety of POPs, and the main article now lists at least 3 examples from different studies. Would that make the hook more logical and descriptive of what is actually written in the article at hand? Thanks again for all the help! Behind-the-scenes at wikipedia is much more involved than I would have anticipated, haha. Ebertar (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, if you placed that statement in the article (in sum and substance) with an inline citation, you could then use it for the hook.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Fantastic! In that case, the article and hook now match up. Should my next move be to go to the T:TDYK page, and follow the instructions for nomination? I can nominate myself, correct? Ebertar (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Had I not needed to come back to you about the hook, I was just going to do the nomination for you after you reached out, but if you do it, you'll learn how to do it, which is a good thing. A few things: because of the size of the article, I would place in the template's  field something like " The hook fact appears in the second to last paragraph in the section for Pollution and Phytoremediation " Also, you've probably figured this out already but you are exempt from the quid pro quo review requirement because you've done less than five previous nominations. Any problems, drop me a line (in general, not just about this in particular). Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ectomycorrhiza
The DYK project (nominate) 08:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)