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.
A fact from Erythranthe appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 February 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
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 articles
If you want to discuss the etymology of the name, it is probably best to have a section devoted to it, or you could have an "Etymology and taxonomy" section.
I renamed it to "Etymology and Taxonomy" is that what you meant? HalfGigtalk 01:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I was thinking you would be moving in all or part of the first paragraph of your Description section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Done I agree. This is better. HalfGigtalk 21:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
The Description section should be a description of the general characteristics of the group, see Cucurbita, an article you know well, for what I mean. Zombia is another example.
Do you need to have two species lists? Do they contain the same species, or are some species in one and not the other?
Since there are so many and there are significant section differences, I thought making two helped seeing the larger picture and if you want to know what's in a section, it's easy to do so, and likewise for having a straight listing. HalfGigtalk 01:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Personally, I would put the species lists at the end of the article because otherwise people may not even find the text below.
Y Done. Since there are so many, I see the merit to this, note Cucurbita has it the way I first had it. HalfGigtalk 01:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I think that is a considerable improvement, leaving the main part of the article more rounded and compact. I will now study the article in detail and continue with the rest of the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
I still think, as mentioned above, that you additionally need to mention the characteristics of the genus, why the members are included in the genus and not in Mimulus or elsewhere.
Still working on the description section. Prob need a few more days, please. HalfGigtalk 17:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
"Diplacus is clearly derived from within Mimulus s.l. and was not usually considered to be generically distinct." - Did you mean "generically" or "genetically"?
"Erythranthe was greatly enlarged to include 111 species (species with axile placentation and long pedicels)." - This information should be included additionally in the "Description" section, because it is this that seperates the genus from other members of the Phrymaceae family.
"Members of this genus are found in eastern Asia; several species of which have a high degree of similarity some the species found in North and South America." - This sentence is a bit muddled.
That's all for now. It is quite a challenging article because of the complexity of the taxonomy of the genus. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it's more challenging than most. HalfGigtalk 17:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
Give me a ping when you are ready for me to look at the article again. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Cwmhiraeth: I will. This has been harder than I expected but I do want to finish. I'm almost done with what I can do and at this point am waiting on input from someone else, who, unfortunately, has been delayed by real life obligations. I fully intend to finish. Thank you for your patience and understand. HalfGigtalk 18:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Cwmhiraeth: The guy still hasn't given me his input. He's way overdue from what he promised and I haven't heard from him lately. I guess you should go ahead and take another look and we'll work through it the best we can. HalfGigtalk 11:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
Sminthopsis84 has made a few alterations to the article. I have done some light copyediting, and here are a few more things I noticed:
"Molecular data show Erythranthe and Diplacus to be distinct evolutionary lines, not each other's closest relative, and apart from strictly defined Mimulus." - How about leaving out the middle phrase and rewording this as "Molecular data show Erythranthe and Diplacus to be distinct evolutionary lines that are distinct from Mimulus as strictly defined."
"The plant is hairy to slightly hairy and grows from 0.5–3 cm (0.20–1.18 in) tall." - This is about Erythranthe alsinoides and the dimensions are wrong (more likely 5 to 30 cm tall).
Good catch! Fixed. Source said dm not cm. HalfGigtalk 13:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
"The flowers are yellow with reddish-brown spots, usually on the lower lip, and have fuse into upper and lower lips" - This sentence needs attention.
"Diplacus is clearly derived from within Mimulus s.l. and was not usually considered to be a separate genus." - I don't understand this. What do you mean by "Mimulus s.l."?
abbr for "sensu lato", meaning in the broad sense. This is used in botany a lot, as is "sensu stricto", meaning in the strict sense. I've changed to lay terms. HalfGigtalk 13:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
"in central California between 200,000 and 500,000 years ago" - It is customary to put the oldest date first.
