Template:Did you know nominations/Salix richardsonii, Salix brachycarpa, Salix glauca, Salix hastata, Salix pulchra

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Salix richardsonii, Salix brachycarpa, Salix glauca, Salix hastata, Salix pulchra[edit]

( Back to T:TDYK )

( Article history links:

)

NOTE: This page was moved or recreated from the page that is now Template:Did you know nominations/Salix arbusculoides. Some relevant history can be found on that page's history. --Orlady (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

~~<s>~~... that the peachleaf willow was used in traditional Eskimo medicine to treat skin sores and watery eyes?~~</s>~~

Created/expanded by IceCreamAntisocial (talk). Nominated by PFHLai (talk) at 06:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks. "Salix arbusculoides" just got promoted. (So quick!) I'll see if I can make hooks for the remaining 5 willows. --PFHLai (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's a modified hook without "Salix arbusculoides". It's up to the authors if "more meat" can be added to the articles.

ALT3:... that various North American alpine or subalpine willows, such as the woolly, barren-ground, white, diamondleaf, and Halberd willow (pictured), can be used to make medicines, weapons and animal traps? --PFHLai (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Argh! When this page got moved or recreated, the old page remained as a ghost without a redirect. I reopened the old template on the notion that it could continue to be used, but because it had been renamed, it is no longer transcluded on the DYK noms page. I guess I could do a history merge, but that seems unnecessary for an ephemeral page like this one, particularly in view of the various changes that have occurred. Therefore, below this I'm copying in the comments that Rcej and I made on the old page, -- Orlady (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

S. arbusculoides was promoted. Discussion continues below.

The DYK criterion for character length is 1500, not "I don't like 1500 today". Orlady, please specify which of the 6 articles do not meet that length. Rcej (Robert) – talk 02:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Take another look at Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria, particularly: "In practice, articles longer than 1,500 characters may still be rejected as too short, at the discretion of the selecting reviewers." All of the articles exceeded 1500 characters at the time I reviewed them, including the one that was over the threshold by just two characters at 1502. Most are in the 1600 range and one is currently over 1900. I was bothered by the impression that I was reading the same article six times -- I had to pay close attention to note the differences between the species -- and my awareness that some of the content was boilerplate that is true of the entire genus Salix (and that in fact closely paraphrased the article about the genus). The articles seemed thin on content. I was asking only for a little more meat on the bones of the articles. There's plenty of additional species-specific information in the cited sources. Also, creation of topical subsections would help make the articles seem more substantial. --Orlady (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What's happening here? Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll see if I can beef up the articles a bit and make a new hook over the weekend. --PFHLai (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The Salix richardsonii article is more than 2k characters long.

ALT4: ... that broth prepared with the bark of woolly willow is used in Native American medicine to treat sore throats? --PFHLai (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The above hook for S. richarsonii is good to go. If it is promoted, please record the promotion in the template and DO NOT close this template; please keep it open so the other articles can be considered. --Orlady (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

S. richarsonii has been moved to prep 1. Miyagawa (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

- Marker added for tracking purposes. --Orlady (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The Salix glauca article is now more than 3k characters long. Here are a couple of proposed hooks. Perhaps ALT6 should be used before Women's History Month begins?

ALT5: ... that the gray-leaf willow (pictured) is a rich source of calcium and phosphorus for its browsers?
ALT6: ... that female plants of the gray-leaf willow are less tolerant of drought conditions than males?

--PFHLai (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Salix glauca is good to go. New enough and long enough. Both hooks ALT5 and ALT6 are interesting and verified. Article is well-sourced. Etc. Image is nice and has a good license. (If I've counted correctly, this leaves three articles in this nomination. If it is promoted, please record the promotion in the template and DO NOT close this template; please keep it open so the other articles can be considered.) --Orlady (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

S. glauca promoted. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Three little articles jumping on the bed. When will one fall off and bump its head? Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No progress in resolving remaining issues for over 2 weeks. --Allen3 ^talk 11:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

May I have 48 hours, please? If I can't come up with something by March 20th, I'll close this nom myself. These articles are getting too old, anyway.... --PFHLai (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The Salix hastata article is now more than 3k characters long.

ALT7: ... that various willows, such as Salix hastata, were found to have colonized in and naturally restored much of the moose habitats destroyed during the construction of the Trans Alaska Pipeline?

--PFHLai (talk) 07:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Nice hook, but it turns out it's not really true. Reading the cited source, I wasn't convinced that it truly supported the hook. I found the article cited by the source, and determined that it doesn't actually support the hook. The deal is that low-growing willow species, including S. hastata and S. brachycarpa (another species waiting for a hook), did naturally colonize some (but not all) of the riparian sites where researchers were trying to grow S. alaxensis. Unfortunately, S. alaxensis is the species that's most valuable for moose browse because it's tall enough that it doesn't get covered up by snow in the winter, and the researchers were not particularly successful getting it to grow. I think this is the beginning of a good hook (one that can work for two of the three remaining species here), but it will need some adjustment. (I'll work on it.) --Orlady (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

OMG! Thank you for pointing this out, Orlady. I didn't expect the USDA ref to be wrong like that! I have removed the sentence from the wikiarticle for now. --PFHLai (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I've re-read the journal article (what USDA cited) a couple more times, and edited the S. hastata article to reflect my understanding of it. The USDA summary of it is not wrong, but the juxtaposition of statements in the summary made it appear to say something that the original source did not say. I have not worked on a new hook yet.

Along the way, I discovered that Salix pulchra apparently is a synonym for a subspecies of Salix planifolia ~~(or possibly a synonym for S. planifolia in general). This bears further investigation...~~ --Orlady (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC) I think I've successfully sorted out the taxonomy of S. pulchra and S. planifolia; no need for further concern. --Orlady (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Trying again for a hook. Here are two different ways to word a new two-article hook, complete with a choice of pictures for the reviewer to consider:

ALT8: ... that low-growing willows, such as Salix hastata (pictured) and S. brachycarpa, were found to have recolonized riparian habitats destroyed during the construction of the Trans Alaska Pipeline within four years?

ALT9: ... that within four years after the Trans Alaska Pipeline was built, low-growing willows such as Salix brachycarpa (pictured) and S. hastata were found to have recolonized riparian habitats destroyed by construction? --Orlady (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

From page 537 of the source:
Construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) destroyed large areas of riparian shrub in the Atigun and Sagavanirktok river valleys, mostly through shallow mining of vegetated river bars for gravel. When the pipeline was completed in 1977, a large-scale riparian habitat restoration project, involving 1.5 million cuttings of the feltleaf willow Salix alaxensis Anderss. (Cov.) (Argus, 1973) was conducted.
From page 538 of the source:
Three to four years after disturbance, we surveyed natural regeneration on almost all of the disturbed sites within the TAPS impact area, and found that 23 ha had a density of S. alaxensis seedlings equal to or greater than the density of mature willows in primary moose habitat (4000 ha⁻¹) (Neiland et al., 1981). Site conditions affecting natural revegetation of disturbed areas were similar to those affecting riparian succession on areas not disturbed by construction. All moist gravel areas were rapidly colonized by S. alaxensis, moist silty areas were rapidly colonized by a mixture of S. alaxensis and low willows, and dry areas were colonized only by low willows. Many dry disturbed sites with coarse-textured substrates were not colonized by willows.
Both ALT8 and ALT9 are verified. . I prefer ALT8 because it contains File:Spieß-Weide (Salix hastata).jpg, which is a sharper, better quality image than File:SalixBrachycarpaWPC.jpg. Cunard (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Have put Salix brachycarpa (or S. brachycarpa) in italics in ALT8 and ALT9 above; its article uses italics, and it should match the other species in the hooks, which is rendered in italics. --BlueMoonset 18:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the fixes, the new hook, and the review, everyone. But the S. brachycarpa wikipage needs some fixing. Please don't use the hook yet. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

As per PFHLai above, Salix brachycarpa needs some fixing, so canceling out the checkmark temporarily with the question mark icon, which keeps it from showing up on the queues page as a verified DYK. The checkmark can be reinstated when the article is in good enough shape for DYK purposes. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I have done all I can for the Salix brachycarpa wikipage. Thank you for waiting. I'm moving on to the Salix pulchra wikipage next. --PFHLai (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Reiterating Cunard's tick above. Note that both ALT8 and ALT9 were verified, but Cunard stated a preference for ALT8 because the image associated with it was sharper. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

(Note to person who considers this for a prep area: these are the third and fourth of five articles nominated; Salix richardsonii and Salix glauca have previously been promoted. If this double hook is promoted, please record the promotion in this template and DO NOT close the template; please keep it open so the one remaining article, Salix pulchra, can be considered.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Right - I've promoted the hastata/brachycarpa hook now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Salix pulchra wikiarticle is now slightly more than 2k characters long.

ALT10: ... that diamondleaf willow tastes the least bitter of willows in Alaska, is rich in vitamin C, and its leaves can be chewed to treat a sore mouth?

--PFHLai (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC) [ ALT10 amended. --PFHLai (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC) ][ Tweaked. --PFHLai (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC) ]

Hurray on the expansion, but hmm on the hook... The article tells me that S. pulchra is actually one of the least bitter willows in Alaska. I have another suggestion:

ALT11: ... that Eskimos harvested the leaves of diamondleaf willow in the spring and stored them in seal oil for later eating? --Orlady (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with ALT11. Thank you, Orlady. --PFHLai (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that ALT10 use "of" rather than "among", if it ends up being chosen over ALT11. I think the hook works much better now that it's been rewritten, and have to confess that the "vitamin C" bit got my attention; maybe the term should be linked? BlueMoonset (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've tweaked ALT10 as suggested. Thanks, BlueMoonset. --PFHLai (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd take ALT11 as the more interesting one. size and reffing ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)