Talk:Poinsettia

Poinsettia 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: February 11, 2020. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Poinsettia 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

Archives: 1

Substantial revisions incoming

Hello watchers, I'm in the holiday spirit from the Tree of Life Holiday Contest and have chosen to improve this very popular article. Ultimately I hope to bring this to GA standards. Any help or feedback is welcome, but mostly just wanted to provide some background detail. Cheers, Enwebb (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Starsandwhales (talk · contribs) 21:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Enwebb! This has been sitting in GA nominations for a while, so I'm reviewing it.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

The source from Gardening Know How seems a bit sketchy? Like I know it's run by gardeners but it's still a blog.
- replaced
Same with the Teleflora blog. Are these reliable and unbiased?
- replaced
The habitat and range section could be more detailed. Do you know whether it prefers rainforests or drier areas? High elevation or low elevation?
- I've expanded the range section, making it more detailed.
More information on ecology would be helpful. Are there any organisms that eat it? The information about pollination could go in an ecology section as well.
- There's basically nothing known ("Shockingly, for such an important plant, nothing is known about pollination in poinsettia.") so I didn't think it was worth having a biology/ecology section with one sentence. All the sources I found about predation were in regards to cultivation, not wild poinsettias.
The "In culture" section could perhaps discuss how the plant became more associated with Christmas. (Like mentioned in the "Cultivation" section)
- added a sentence
I know it isn't necessary, but alt text for the first image would be helpful.
- added alts for all images

Other than these, the article is really good! It's very informative without being too complicated. starsandwhales (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starsandwhales sorry it took me so long to finish this up--I think I've addressed all your concerns so far. Enwebb (talk) 17:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

source?

"Many of these poinsettias are grown by Paul Ecke Ranch, which serves half the worldwide market and 70% of the US market."

Is there a source for this claim? Other than the Paul Ecke Ranch? 2001:1BA8:14C2:E700:F99F:65ED:6E5F:8DC2 (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving alternative names to foreground

Hi y'all,

Given that the problematic history behind the origin of the name "poinsettia," I wanted to start a conversation here about the possibility of moving some of the alternative names like "flor de nochebuena" and "cuetlaxochitl" to the introduction as alternative names in italics. I didn't want to make this change on my own out of pocket in case there are folks who would be against the idea. Would be curious what everyone else thinks. Thanks!

- yujie.ho123 Yujie.ho123 (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cuetlaxochitl is the just the Nahuatl name

Cuetlaxochitl is the just the Nahuatl name, other Indigenous peoples called it other things. The Maya called it k'alul wits, for instance. TuckerResearch (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated history

There seems to be some misinformation on this article. (Here's the video that brought this to my attention, for those curious.)

While the plant was certainly named after Joel Poinsett, it's uncertain whether he was the one who introduced it to the US, and there's no evidence that it was first sent to South Carolina.
There are very few Mexican resources on the supposed 16th century legend of Pepita, where the plant's association with Christmas is said to have originated. (The Spanish version of this article, for example, doesn't seem to mention it.) The story's earliest recorded variant is from 1964 (The Book of Festival Holidays), and the child was first named Pepita in 1997 (Poinsettias: Myth & Legend). This article states that poinsettias were first associated with Christmas by Franciscan priests in the 17th century.

I'm not much of a qualified Wikipedia editor, so I'll leave these changes to someone else. 2001:569:777B:1200:5945:C41:69A1:5CED (talk) 05:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, the sentences related to Joel Poinsett introducing the plant to the US are supported by a citation to this publication by the International Society for Horticultural Science. This is considered a reliable source, so it meets the standards of Wikipedia. To change or remove this information, other reliable sources would need to dispute it, and that YouTube video is not a reliable source. Anyone can make a video and publish it on YouTube, unlike getting a paper published by the International Society for Horticultural Science.

I removed the part about Pepita, as the sources I clicked through did not actually support the content as claimed. Enwebb (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]