Talk:Epacris impressa

More key source(s)

I see you folks are doing more great editing work here. I’d add the following recent scientific paper reference source (fully cited below, please copy), and i may follow up here with some more.:

• Conomikes, Melanie; Moore, Gregory M.; McLean, Cassandra (2012). "Genetic analysis reveals a wide regional provenance distribution for Epacris impressa" (PDF). Muelleria. 30 (2): 175–182. Retrieved 1 June 2014.

—--Macropneuma 02:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that!--Melburnian (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, just getting my head around it all....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the two papers by Stace & Fripp cited here that they could email to me?--Melburnian (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Crap - missed this. I can do this - send me an email and I can reply to it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for that.--Melburnian (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You folks going well as usual … . I’d like to see youse get a photo of natural 2–3 years post–fire mass regeneration springtime flowering, like this fine photo from post–Ash Wednesday, Anglesea Victoria, by late, great, naturalist Mary D. White (of Anglesea) on her book cover. Then more so than at present in the article body prose text, relate this vegetation ecology and amazing regeneration and flowering response of Epacris impressa. I can give many scientific papers references, including the set of vegetation regeneration seminal studies from Anglesea by Mary D. White and Margaret Wark/MacDonald, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria (freely available here via the State Library of Victoria website), but there’s so many more vegetation ecology and survey scientific papers from across this species distribution throughout southeastern Australia that i’m not sure yet where best to get you to start reading and citing them as a whole body of literature … .--Macropneuma 07:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Summary article on the Anglesea ANGAIR post–fire vegetation regeneration scientific and popular survey, in the natural history journal The Victorian Naturalist, including referencing of the scholarly science papers they published and how they achieved so much seminal scientific vegetation survey work (no mention of Epacris impressa in this summary article, the species survey results are in those scientific papers well referenced within this):

• Wark, Margaret C. (2000). "After the 1983 Wildfire: the Anglesea Vegetation Regeneration Project – How it Grew". The Victorian Naturalist. 117 (3): 96–106. Retrieved 24 July 2014.

—--Macropneuma 08:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Have looked at the 1996 Wark paper on regeneration of woodland and heath at anglesea - mentions E. impressa but nothing I can really add. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

With Epacris impressa the topic, i’d prefer to check the first three years post–1983–fire survey, published in 1987, digitised here … , not sure if there’s enough material written in that to use for adding—busy busy, running late here, not possible for me to read through it, just now. —--Macropneuma 12:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah found that one - a bit I can add...aaaand added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

What to do now

I will try and get to library and look in FoA on thursday - surely there must be a better description of seed pods, seed and seedlings....? Anything else? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good, the only other thing that springs to mind right now is a range map.--Melburnian (talk) 02:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Will do that tonight. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--Melburnian (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Damn - didn't get to library today :( Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've been farting around on this article for eight years, so you won't get any criticism from me :-P--Melburnian (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that Flora of Australia, Volume 9: Ericales has not been published yet.[1]--Melburnian (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Crap. No point looking for it then. I will adapt a map from one of the ANBG ones online then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the map. I think the ANBG map in their "Floral Emblems of Australia" (1985) article is a bit out of date. Their "Growing Native Plants" [2] article has a map that shows "Distribution from AVH 2013" that clicks through to the AVH map. I think the main differences that need to be shown is the presence on Kangaroo Island (see also [3]) and distribution throughout Tasmania including the Bass Strait islands. The only thing to watch with some individual AVH records (dots on the map) are occasional ones from cultivation (eg Botanic Gardens), those with uncertain or dubious ID, and those with incorrect coordinates.--Melburnian (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

aaah ok will fix soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Looking good, thanks.--Melburnian (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs) 02:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Well-written:

The article looks to comply with MoS policies on prose, grammar, and structure. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 00:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation

Verifiable with no original research:

The article uses a very healthy and extensive list of published third-party sources. It does not look as though any original research has been incorporated. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

(c) it contains no original research

Broad in its coverage:

The article is very broad in its coverage; extensive but not excessive detail is applied to all encyclopedic aspects of the subject. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

The article shows no bias towards or against the topic covered. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 00:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

No sign of any edit warring taking place in the past couple of years, as evidenced in the revision history. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

The article is well-illustrated with relevant images, all of which are appropriately licensed. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Errrr, Wilhelmina Will....yoo hooo......cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, it slipped my mind. I'll get back to this either today or tomorrow. Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok no worries. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for the long wait, but I'm pleased to say that my review of the article brings me to the conclusion that it satisfies the GA criteria. Congratulations!!! Spring in Wikipedia is lovely! Just avoid the articles on flowers... (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

No problem - thanks for the review! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

"Heathy woodland"

Sorry if I'm missing nuance here, but... isn't it obvious/redundant to note that heath grows in heathy woodland? Brutannica (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Brutannica: hadn't thought of that..."heath" refers to heathland as well as many types of small plant. The adjective here means like the heathland...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Symbolism is a misnomer

Section 6: Symbolism is mis-titled. There is no description about what the plant or flower symbolize, only an explanation of how and why it was chosen for the coat of arms. I suggest that either the section be re-titled to something more fitting (perhaps 'Significance'?), or the symbolism behind the plant/flower be added to the section. Louie.dw (talk) 09:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, fair point - I have renamed the section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Epacris impressa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091017221358/http://www.aff.org.au/Conomikes_Epacris_final.pdf to http://www.aff.org.au/Conomikes_Epacris_final.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)