Talk:Lilium nobilissimum
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Did you know nomination
[edit]
- ... that Lilium nobilissimum (pictured) got its Japanese name from the kimono sleeve pouches where the lily's bulbs were stored while scaling the sea cliffs the lily was native to?
- Source: "Lilium nobilissimum the Tamoto-yuri or pouch lily is named after the tamoto, a pouch under the sleeve of a kimono into which fans are often placed and into which bulbs of this lily were placed by islanders scaling the precipitous sea cliffs where the lily bulbs grew (Wada, 1950: 71)." Compton, James (June 2021). "TWO ENDEMIC AND CRITICALLY ENDANGERED RYUKYU ISLAND LILIES LILIUM NOBILISSIMUM AND LILIUM UKEYURI (LILIACEAE)". Curtis's Botanical Magazine. 38 (2): 240–259. doi:10.1111/curt.12385. Retrieved 28 December 2024.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Thasmin
- Comment: Thank you in advance to the reviewer for their time! If there is an alternative way of wording the hook to make it succinct or convey it more clearly, I would be happy to collaborate. In my view, the sleeves which the lily was stored in while locals would put the lily bulbs in while climbing cliffs is quite an interesting hook, but it is a bit wordy as is in my view. For the reviewer's reference, Compton (2021) is available through the Wikipedia Library through Wiley Online Library.
Ornithoptera (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC).
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
| Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
|---|
|
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
It's a little unusual to launch into taxonomy in the second sentence of the lead. Maybe move that further back?
Some more technical terms in the description section could use some linking or glossing, given that this will be on the main page. As a non-plant person, what stands out to me as a little confusing are the words "entire", "petiolate", "adaxially" and "abaxially" (I'd guess these mean top and bottom, but surely a less technical term can be found?), "tepals" "trilobate". There are a few cases where, for fuller understanding, I think a gloss should and can be added in addition to the link, specifically geophyte, bulbils, and hypogeal germination. There are also a few places where a technical term is favoured over an ordinary one, for example:
- undulate: why not just say, "wavy"?
- glabrous: "bald" or "hairless" are synonymous and more accessible.
Regarding the hook: not to be too picky, but that's presented in the article as a hypothesis, and presented in the hook as fact. I think we should qualify it a little more with a "may have" or "possibly" or "it has been suggested"
Alternative hook, I'm not sure if you'll think it's an improvement:
...that in Japan, Lilium nobilissimum (pictured) may have been named after the sleeves used to to carry it from the cliffs it grows on? Cremastra (u — c) 17:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Cremastra, thank you for your constructive feedback and for taking the time to read the article. I hope you enjoyed it! I have implemented the edits you have suggested within the description and the lead. I'm okay with the ALT1 hook that you have proposed as well, that sounds like a reasonable adjustment. I'm wondering what is the process to get a second opinion regarding the image used, but I can try to do a little more digging around to see if I can find another illustration. The big challenge for me is that, due to the lily's taxonomic history, a lot of the illustrations are mislabelled, at least in English. Regardless, thank you again for your time and I hope the adjustments are satisfactory. Ornithoptera (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, Ornithoptera, and thanks for making the changes. I'm not going to hold up an otherwise flawless nomination over an aesthetic disagreement about the image, so I've given this the check. Thanks, Cremastra (u — c) 21:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)