Template:Did you know nominations/Euphorbia kaokoensis

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: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
No viable hook; closing as unsuccessful.

DYK toolbox

Euphorbia kaokoensis

(
)
  • ... that Euphorbia kaokoensis is so rare that a man from the area it is found was unaware of its existence? Source: [1] :— "Erythrococca kaokoensis is rare and localised with only a few plants at each locality. It was unknown to a local Ovahimba herdsman who was raised in the area and who accompanied the author on one of his visits to the type locality."
  • ALT1: ... that Euphorbia kaokoensis is listed as Least Concern despite being a rare species? Source: [2]
  • ALT2: ... that Euphorbia kaokoensis was classified as Least Concern despite a recommendation for it to be classified as Vulnerable? Source: [3]
    • Reviewed: [[]]
    • Comment: My last free DYK.

5x expanded by An anonymous username, not my real name (talk). Self-nominated at 16:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC).

Sound good to me, although another possible ALT could be that it was classified as Least Concern despite a recommendation for it to be classified as Vulnerable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Added both as ALTs. An anonymous username, not my real name 01:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hooks are interesting, and the article is sourced so I'll approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
@An anonymous username, not my real name, SL93, and Onegreatjoke: I can verify the first bit of ALT1 to the IUCN, and the second bit to the coining paper, but the former seems to make little mention of the latter. Wouldn't a strict reading of SYNTH say that we're putting together two sources editorially – i.e. implying that the IUCN didn't really consider the rarity of the species in classifying it? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 13:06, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
theleekycauldron I didn't think about that. You have a good point. SL93 (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, SL93, Narutolovehinata5, and An anonymous username, not my real name: FWIW, I think the original was fine, but where does this stand on hook selection? Kingsif (talk) 05:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Personally, Kingsif, I prefer the first, but I added the other two after other users suggested them. If you think the original is good, then I fully support it. An anonymous username, not my real name 13:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't look like any hook has consensus right now – I'd be happy to lift my hold on ALT1 if someone could tell me why it's justifiably not SYNTH, of course. If the nomination doesn't produce a viable hook in about a week, i think we should move towards closure, because I agree with Narutolovehinata5 that ALT0 doesn't seem all that unusual. Maybe a little unusual given the occupation of the person in question, but they are still just one person. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Marking for closure. No viable hook. SL93 (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Euphorbia_kaokoensis&oldid=1131322643"