Template:Did you know nominations/Madagascar banana

Madagascar banana

(

)

... that there are only three mature Madagascar banana trees?

Source: "Only five mature individuals of E. perrieri have been previously identified in the whole of Madagascar, and a recent survey has suggested that now only three of these may be left (Analavelona, Ampefy and Maintirano areas)." https://www.kew.org/read-and-watch/madagascan-banana

ALT1: ... that the Madagascar banana is critically endangered? Source: https://www.kew.org/read-and-watch/madagascan-banana
Reviewed:
Comment: No QPQ required as Laffuble will own this DYK as you can see from talk page. I (Chidgk1) just put it in for them and will deal with any questions they might be unsure about being relatively new to Wikipedia

Chidgk1 (talk) 16:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Hello Laffuble, welcome to DYK, I hope you have a wonderful time here! I have a few concerns regarding the article which I will outline below, and will ping Chidgk1 since there are outstanding inquiries about the state of this article:
ALT0 is truthfully the most interesting of the two hooks proposed. Plenty of things out there are critically endangered, it is a conservation category onto itself. The severely restricted population serves as a much better hook. However, the hook as it stands right now is not supported by the material within the article and the source, which states there are five mature individuals rather than three. I will strike ALT1 from consideration.
iNaturalist is not a good source for the plant's morphology, nor is Rarepalmseeds, which is a site with commercial interests. A much better source for that information is either a study or the original description, if it can be located. iNaturalist's image gallery being a source falls into WP:OR. Google Scholar is a helpful source for finding research papers regarding Ensete perrieri, if you're stuck finding trustworthy sources.
Earwig detects no copyvio issues, long enough, and new enough. I hope this can be of help to you! Ornithoptera (talk) 07:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ornithoptera: We have made some changes - is it ok now?

Chidgk1 My apologies but I see that you have simply replaced the problematic sources for the “Description” section, rather than consulting the source and making the necessary changes to the article using the information presented there. That will not be enough to allow for the article to pass scrutiny. Would you be able to take a look at the source rather than simply replacing the original citations? In addition, the hook has not been updated per my request, since it is not supported by the article text. Ornithoptera (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the cited article and the description for E. perrieri is as follows: Ensete perrieri (Claverie) comb. nov. ; Musa perrieri P. Claverie in Comptes Rendus Acad. Sci. Paris 140 (1905), 1612, nomen, et in Ann. us. Colon. Marseille ser. 2, vol. 7 (1909), p. 74, descr. cum ic. t. 8., this will not serve as a viable source for the passage. I would be most ideal to first consult with the source before using it in the article. I noticed that you and Laffuble had issues with accessing sources, the Wikipedia library at WP:LIB, if you have made enough edits, can be a great resource since it has institutional access to several journals that can be of use. Ornithoptera (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ornithoptera: Thanks for explaining Wikipedia Library. Have added quote for hook - is hook OK now? If there are any remaining problems with the description please could you comment in the talk page section below this as it is easier to reply.Chidgk1 (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Chidgk1, I really want to emphasize to you and Laffuble that you should both read the issues I have outlined with the article. Only a few significant edits that I have outlined have been addressed properly, I will break the issues down line by line so that it can be easier to guide you in going about the necessary edits.

The text in the original description section has not been changed to match the source. The source was simply replaced, with the passage's text not significantly changed to address the new source. On top of this, Annales du Muśee colonial de Marseille does not explicitly identify this as E. perrieri. Unless the source is beyond a reasonable doubt that it is E. perrieri, it is not the most ideal. I would emphasize that it is most ideal to have the entire section re-written and updated to reflect sources that explicitly include a description of E. perrieri.

Laffuble Are you able to deal with this? If you are at uni maybe the librarian there can advise? I don't think there is any rush now so if you cannot fix it please contact me after Xmas and I will root around in the Wikipedia library mentioned above.

iNaturalist is not a reliable source. It is a social media site that provides valuable insight, but the information cannot be considered reliable as anyone can upload an observation and provide faulty information.

@Ornithoptera: You are right that most info on iNaturalist is from members of the public so should not be cited, however the few photos which they classify as "research grade" are reliable in my opinion. If you disgree I will be happy to start a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard so we can get more thoughts on it. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I really want to assist this DYK make it through, but I really would like to have all necessary edits be done before I am alerted to allow for it to pass. Ornithoptera (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)