Talk:Aquilegia paui

Aquilegia paui has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 17, 2025. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aquilegia paui article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	It is requested that a range map be included in this article to improve its quality.

Spain Low‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Aquilegia paui appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 May 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the conservation of a goat might endanger the survival of Aquilegia paui?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2025/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Aquilegia paui.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

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 Cielquiparle talk 19:24, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that the conservation of a goat might endanger the survival of Aquilegia paui?

Source: Martinell, M. Carmen; López-Pujol, Jordi; Blanché, Cèsar; Molero, Julián; Sàez, Llorenç (2011). "Conservation assessment of Aquilegia paui (Ranunculaceae): a case study of an extremely narrow endemic". Oryx. 45 (2): 187–190. doi:10.1017/S0030605310001754 – via Cambridge University Press.

ALT1: ... that a mistake led to Aquilegia paui not being considered a species? Source: ibid
ALT2: ... that all Aquilegia paui plants are found within a few kilometers of each other? Source: ibid
Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Amtrak Susquehanna River Bridge

Created by Pbritti (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 76 past nominations.

Pbritti (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

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

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: I'd prefer if the second paragraph were cited, but I suppose some would consider it part of the lede. All statements there are supported in the rest of the body, so not a deal breaker. I'm also curious what the Spanish common name is. ALT1 could be rephrased to be more interesting: Even just saying "mix-up" instead of "mistake" would punch it up. Still interesting enough as is. Likewise ALT0 is good. ALT2 is alright in a pinch. Great job. awkwafaba (📥) 00:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Awkwafaba: Thanks for the review—always nice to see a nice and quick one! To clarify, MOS:LEAD explains that the lead is anything preceding the first heading. I generally refrain from citations in leads for plant articles as there's typically little room for controversy, but please let me know if you have specific facts you think ought to be directly verified in the lead! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pbritti, would this be more clear for ALT2:

ALT3: ... that all Aquilegia paui plants are found within a few kilometers of Mont Caro?

I think that is the same fact unless I am misreading it, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjjiii: I think that's essentially the same content, so it should be fine if a promoter prefers that verbiage for ALT2. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I just don't want to propose alternatives that nominators are opposed to, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aquilegia paui/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pbritti (talk · contribs) 02:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: ZKevinTheCat (talk · contribs) 11:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning the GA review.
—ZKevinTheCat

Review

The article is mostly good, but there are some issues I spotted:

The total area covered by each subpopulation combined measures less than 1 km (0.62 mi). These are not the correct units. kilometers measure distance, not area, so this statement doesn't really make sense.
- Done. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The caption in the last image reads Construction on the mountain is thought to have damaged two A. paui subpopulations. But in the text it says The study suggested that construction of telecommunication facilities on Mont Caro may have been responsible for the drop in plants in one subpopulation
- Done. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aquilegia viscosa is apparently a synonym of A. einseleana, so this should probably be changed/clarified in the article (in taxonomy sect.).
- Aquilegia viscosa was, as Enio Nardi put it, once a controversial species. It is now an accepted species by POWO and other major authors on the genus. The accepted form of A. viscosa is whats discussed in this article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check

[9] - good
[15] - good
[7] - good

I've also merged some paragraphs in the description section that talked about similar topics, fixed a few typos and tweaked the wording in some spots. These are mostly just personal preferences (except typos obv.), so you can change them if you like.

——————————————————————————————————

Alright, looks good. About the wording and such, they are mainly just nitpicks and it isn't anything you would need to worry about in terms of GA status. I think we're done here. Good work. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]