Template:Did you know nominations/Superbloom

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 Yoninah (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Superbloom

(

)

Superbloom in Riverside County, California in March 2019

... that California deserts are experiencing the second spectacular wildflower superbloom in two years? (pictured) Source: Time.com)

Created by A loose necktie (talk). Self-nominated at 22:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC).

article is new enough, long enough (2,095 characters of prose at the moment), passes Earwig's copyvio test, and reads neutral. Hook is good, with or without the image (though it does add a nice touch). I'd say it's good to go! = paul2520 (talk) 00:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so... what's next? Am wondering if this article will make it to DYK while the superbloom is still, well, "superblooming" (by this summer, it will certainly be over, and there won't be nearly as much relevance for the piece in DYK-land). What more needs to be done to get the article onto the main page? A loose necktie (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I came by to promote this. I broke a long paragraph into smaller ones and added a "citation needed" tag to one of the paragraphs. Please add the cite. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I have had a look at these changes— they look good to me! I have a question about the citation-need tag, however: the citation already in the article at the end of the following paragraph (i.e, ref 3 right now) is the ref that covers the conditions necessary for a superbloom to occur (i.e., warm ground, cloud cover, etc.). That ref also covers the need for some-but-not-too-much water. By splitting the paragraph, the ref is no longer associated with the need for non-innundating rain. So one of three things can happen: we can re-join the paragraph so that all of this information is covered by the single reference (i.e., we can put the paragraph back together), or we can put another instance of ref 3 at the end of the newly-separated paragraph regarding rain (which works for me, and which I will do right now) or we can call this a case of WP:BLUE and agree that we don't really need a citation to prove that flash floods will destroy young plants (which also seems fair). Either way, I feel the tag can probably go and the article can move forward, yes? If anyone prefers a different solution that adding another instance of ref 3 to the flash flood paragraph, feel free to implement it. A loose necktie (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that duplicate cite is all that was needed, thanks! Restoring tick per Paul2520's review. Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)