Talk:Schoenoplectus triqueter

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following 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 SL93 talk 20:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Schoenoplectus triqueter

... that the sedge Schoenoplectus triqueter (pictured) can grow up to 1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in) tall, on stems less than one-half centimetre (0.20 in) across?

Source: https://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/eflora_display.php?tid=43578

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Vivian Cosby
Comment: @Kevmin: Just finished QPQ.

Created by Cremastra (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 5 past nominations.

Cremastra (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Starting Review--Kev min § 04:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First question/note on the article is that the species presence in North America is only mentioned in the lede, but not at all covered in the distribution section. Ideally there shouldn't be citations in the lede so the mention of the Columbia River basin should be covered in distribution and elaborated on (what part of the columbia as is a large basin that covers a number of biozones.--Kev min § 22:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll look for more sources and expand the Distribution section tomorrow. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updates looking very good. article is new enough and long enough, with appropriate citations that are neutrally presented. No qpq done as of yet, that is still being waited on. The hook is cited and the citation matches the information as presented. With the hook, I would suggest changing the wording "..., but with stems..." to "... on stems..." as it feels like it flows better that way. thoughts?--Kev min § 20:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it looks like everything is ready to go.--Kev min § 16:34, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cremastra Kevmin I don't see those measurements in the article. I also don't see why the size is interesting. SL93 (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: Quote from the article, highlighted for your convenience: Schoenoplectus triqueter is a medium-sized sedge, growing 50–150 centimetres (1.6–4.9 ft) tall, with long, thick (0.2–1 cm in diameter) rhizomes and thin stems (2–4 mm in diameter). And I find it pretty interesting that a plant can grow to the height of an 10 or 11 year old child on stems thinner than your finger. Cremastra (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't match the measurements in the hook - "1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in) tall, on stems less than one-half centimetre (0.20 in)" SL93 (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cremastra: SL93 (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93:

They grow between 50 and 150 cm.

150 cm = 1.5 m.

Therefore they can grow up to 1.5 metres

Their stems are between 2 and 4 mm in diameter.

There are 10 mm in 1 cm.

Therefore, 5 mm = 0.5 cm.

Since 2 mm and 4 mm are both less than 5 mm, their stems are less than 0.5 cm across.

Does that clarify any issues? Becuase I'm really not seeing a problem here.Cremastra (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article clearly says up to 4.9 ft tall. Article - (1.6–4.9 ft) tall. I bolded it for you. SL93 (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SL93 4.9 ft is 4 ft 11 inches. Because it's in inches, it's not metric. There are 12 inches to the foot, so 4 ft 6 in = 4.5 ft, not 4.6 ft. See this tool. Cremastra (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is resolved now. Although I'm not promoting this because hooks are not supposed to just be interesting to those who know the subject matter, with that being plants in this case. I will let another promoter decide though. SL93 (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging RoySmith and theleekycauldron. Any thoughts on the hook being interesting or not? SL93 (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Cremastra that this is interesting, and I will again note my disapproval of "main page performance" as an excuse to derail valid nominations. Millions of people view the main page daily and people who like plants or nature will find this interesting 3-4 person admin cabals on this project are not a statistically valid sample size to veto hooks for "interest level".--Kev min § 14:59, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm restoring the tick, but I won't be promoting it. I'm tired of people getting upset with me and others for promoting so-called "non-interesting to the majority" hooks. SL93 (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be intimately acquainted with plant anatomy to get that growing that tall, with such thin stems, is kind of cool. Whatever. I think it's clear you don't want to promote this hook, for whatever reason, since after trying to scupper it by claiming that the measurements aren't in the article (when they clearly are), and after I quoted them for you, you're now just saying it isn't sensational enough, and too technical for non-botanists. Or something. Overall I have found your attitude here unhelpful and dismissive. Cremastra (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said on your talk page, it's all hooks that I don't want to promote. It just coincided with this nomination as well. I will promote this hook then, and nothing after. SL93 (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]