Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia caleyi/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2016 [1].

Banksia caleyi edit

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a mission to get the whole opus of Banksia "complete" as it were (to FA standard). Here is the latest one of these - Banksia caleyi. I sprinkle these through every so often to 'mix it up' a little. I feel this is of a standard as the other banksia FAs. I'll fix stuff quick-smart I promise. Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few quick comments:
    • The convert template makes the sentence beginning "Seedlings have cuneate (wedge-shaped) cotyledons" have a range of "1⁄2–1⁄2 in". Maybe there's a template parameter that lets you just put "about 1/2 in"? There's also a "5⁄8–5⁄8 in" earlier in that para.
I detemplated it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The word "lives" is confusing here: "Seedlings have hairy stems and leaves opposite lives..." Could it link to an article or have a parenthetical explanation?
I have no idea what happened there. Reoworded proper now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand this sentence: "The caterpillar of the dryandra moth (Carthaea saturnioides) feeds on the leaves, though co-occurring dryandras are much preferred."
rejigged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Missing subject? "Unlike many other Western Australian banksias, has had some degree of success..."
oops, added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • For more logical flow, I would suggest reorganizing Cultivation thus: Seed germination time. growth time. flowers obscured by the foliage. tolerates light pruning, PH range, sun & shade. grows in more humid areas. attracts pygmy and honey possums. After all, who would not want their article to end with something as adorable sounding as pygmy and honey possums??
rejigged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! delldot ∇. 22:41, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great, everything's addressed, support. delldot ∇. 05:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you've basically worked this out now, so I doubt I'll have much to offer...

  • The second paragraph of the lead strikes me as a bit choppy.
rejigged a little...can you be more specific? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "friable" jargon?
a little - changed to "crumbly", which is what it means. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The inflorescences eventually turn grey, the old flowers remaining as up to 25 large woody follicles develop." Is this what you mean to say? Old flowers remain while, at the same time, up to 25 large woody follicles develop?
yes - they remain on the spike. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "George placed B. caleyi in B. subg. Banksia because its inflorescence is a typical Banksia flower spike" Is it?
the shape is...it's just upside down. I added "shape" to (hopefully) clarify this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They foreshadowed publishing a full arrangement once DNA sampling of Dryandra was complete" Are you missing a word or two here?
added "of Banksia" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm by no means certain about this, but I'm not convinced that you can use "foreshadow" like that, if the "they" refers to the authors. The OED defines foreshadow as "To serve as the shadow thrown before (an object); hence, to represent imperfectly beforehand, prefigure. Also rarely (of a person), to have a foreboding of." So, the authors' current arrangement foreshadows the arrangement which will be forthcoming, perhaps, but if they are foreshadowing something, it's because they themselves are imperfectly representing it, or because they have some foreboding of it. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've changed to something simpler. How's that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched the tense a little; how's this? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. looks fine. behind the scenes folks are still squabbling a little about the sinking of dryandra into banksia - sensitive topic to some... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the caterpillar is parasitic, perhaps the paragraph could be merged with that of the mould?
merged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seeds do not require any treatment, and take 23 to 50 days to germinate." Needs more- a clarification that you're talking about cultivation? I know it's immediately below the section title, but still...
added "in cultivation" now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption "old flower spike showing large follicles – MHNT" is a little cryptic to me.
unabbreviated now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, very strong. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images are fine- all freely licensed with details provided. The caption issue mentioned above is perhaps the only issue. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

  • George 1999 is missing a publishing location
added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Collins et al 2008 uses the long ISBN, others use the short. Consistency would be good.
done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you need "via WikiSource"? I was under the impression that this was more for newspaper archives. You don't provide "via the Biodiversity Library", for example.
removed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be inconsistent on whether you provide ISSNs- I wouldn't bother.
The 1981 Nuytsia one does not have any other identifiers I could find though..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Mast and Givnish 2002, your "main" external link is redundant to the DOI
I removed it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Lamont and Markey 1995, is "South-western" a proper noun? Same in Wiens et al (along with "Honey")
title cased Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For consistency's sake, do we know the first names of McCredie et al?
I found and added (finally!). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why title case for McFarland 1979, but not elsehwere?
oops, I like 'em all title case...done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Weins et al 1979, the JSTOR link is redundant to the DOI
removed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's as picky as I can manage. Spotchecks came back OK. I certainly haven't performed a comprehensive literature search, but Google Scholar certainly isn't suggesting that you have missed anything significant. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very strong, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really necessary to mention that this species is found in Western Australia twice?
I removed one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • dieback - got a link handy?
Issue is dieback is a disambiguation page and the daughter article is the same as the mould. Should I link twice... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
sure Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You gloss cuneate twice
I removed one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The annual rainfall is 550–600 mm (22–24 in). It is often locally abundant. - what is often abundant, the rain or the plant? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
rejigged. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - All looks good. Just one minor consideration left above. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk edit

  • I've never reviewed a plant article before, so here goes. FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No photo of seeds?
Hmm, I don't have any. Will do a scour around.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No author dates after authorities in the taxobox, is this a plant convention?
Good point - I haven't done it for many that I can recall, so of the last 5 plants articles put through FA, Telopea truncata, Brachychiton rupestris, Acacia pycnantha and Epacris impressa were lacking in dates, while Banksia lemanniana had one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, comparing the respective Codes, zoology gives the date but botany generally doesn't. Choess (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The type specimen was collected by William Baxter, inland from King George Sound, in 1829." Not sure, but perhaps mention western Australia here?
Added it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The challenge failed, and Banksia L.f. was formally conserved." When?
Alright, all else seems good, how about this issue? FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It comes from "Sprague, Thomas Archibald. "Taxonomic botany, with special reference to the angiosperms." From: The new systematics (1940): 435-54" just trying to find it online.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "George placed B. caleyi in B. subg. Banksia" This is the first time you use the name George alone, and the first time I read it, it confused me a bit, because there are already two George's mentioned (first names) in the text... Perhaps add dates to every time someone did something, to set them apart? Now you only do it for namings, but could be nice for revisions as well.
Added first name and context - it was the landmark 1981 monograph. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No cladogram for the DNA analysis? It seems a bit as if the long lists of arrangements are in vain (in comparison), since they're based on what appears to outdated methods.
The DNA agrees on its closest relatives. And no formal infrageneric classification has been published since all the DNA stuff. Have trimmed some redundant stuff from taxo lists. WIll double check to see what I can get in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Banksia caleyi has had some degree of success in growing in more humid areas, such as Australia's east coast." In the wild? Has it been introduced elsewhere outside West Australia?
Nah, just in gardens. Most WA banksias die quickly when grown in gardens in eastern Australia, but this one is notable in being a bit more hardy... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems the image selection is a bit "flower-centric", how about this, showing only leaves, which I guess is more typical of what one would encounter?[2]
The 'cf' to me suggests the photo-taker thinks they probably are caleyi but is not sure. Also, leaves can be seen in File:Banksia caleyi 02.png quite well, I do agree some more diverse shots'd be good. Will scour my computer for habit shots or anything else in a few hours. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Banksia caleyi is classified as Not Threatened under the Wildlife Conservation Act of Western Australia." Only mentioned in intro.
Added to body now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No subspecies are recognised." Likewise.
Added to body now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Everything looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sainsf edit

Hi Casliber, I like this initiative of yours. The article is indeed perfect on the whole, reviewers above have cleared almost all the flaws. Well, I have only a few points:

  • You should link shrub somewhere.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link or explain serrated (Lead) (it's also there in Description), dentate (Taxonomy)
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "described" (scientific description) and pistil in Taxonomy; and pH in Cultivation.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cotyledon" and "B. subg. Banksia" are duplicate links under Taxonomy
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a big deal but I think it would look better if we followed the sequence of the article in the Lead as well. I mean the Taxonomy details wold look better in the first paragraph of Lead. The bit about distribution need not be disturbed, but then the second paragraph would have to be expanded a bit. The second paragraph of the Lead could be expanded a bit using a few more details from Ecology and Cultivation, for instance I think the bit about pH is an important detail.
late here and I am tired - need a sleep and coffee before rjigging the lead.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lead rejigged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sainsf <^>Talk all words 18:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support : All my issues have been addressed, and I notice no other flaw in this article so I believe this article will make a good FA. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 04:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Banksia_caleyi/archive1&oldid=1088118646"