Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Perovskia atriplicifolia/archive2

< 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 Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2015 [1].

Perovskia atriplicifolia edit

Nominator(s): RO and Squeamish Ossifrage

This article is about one of the all time great gardening plants, Perovskia atriplicifolia. Following a premature nom last month, Squeamish Ossifrage has collaborated with me on the article, which is now leaps and bounds better than it was at FAC1, thanks to their wonderful work with the clades and phytochemistry stuff, among many others things. We believe it meets the criteria, and we look forward to comments and suggestions from the community. RO(talk) 21:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased and honored to co-nom this article. There's a scattering of animal FAs (especially dinosaurs), and no shortage of fungus article with the bronze star (even I did one!), but there are very, very few plant articles that have been written to this quality level. Doubly so for plants in widespread cultivation, where there's generally less (if any) written about their natural habitat and distribution. I think what Rationalobserver and I have put together is the best summary of the natural history, horticulture, and hard botanical science that exists anywhere on the topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak and Burklemore1: Making the other major contributors to the first FAC aware that it's back. I believe we've satisfied all the outstanding concerns. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very satisfied with the new changes, especially with the taxonomy and phylogeny section. Well done guys, I hope to see the article promoted this time! Burklemore1 (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata edit

Some comments following a quick read-through. Will probably have more to add later after a literature search. Sasata (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I am satisified that this article meets the FAC criteria. Good job! Sasata (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • what cultivar is shown in the taxobox image?
In isolation, impossible to say with certainty, as the distinguishing characteristics of the various cultivars are exclusively related to leaf shape and overall plant height. RO may have more. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's 'Blue Spire' (added). RO(talk) 14:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”blue-to-violet blossoms” why the hyphenation?
No reason. Fixed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”widely-planted”; “deeply-incised” no hyphen required for adjectives ending in -ly
Fixed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”has been considered favorably by experts.” construction sound odd to my ears
Copyedited. RO(talk) 15:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”P. atriplicifolia was the Perennial Plant Association's 1995 Plant of the Year” Is this particular association notable enough that their choice for favourite plant should be given such prominence (2nd paragraph of lead) in this article?
Arguably. It's a fairly influential trade organization in the United States. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Its flowers have also been” Why “also”? The previous sentence wasn’t referring specifically to the flowers
Relic of early text arrangement. Removed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”and the plant itself used for phytoremediation of contaminated soil.” I read the paper that is is cited for this statement in the “Uses” section and it did not seem to me that the plant was actually used for this purpose, rather, it had the ‘’potential’’ to be used for bioremediation.
Fixed. RO(talk) 15:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That one was my fault, sloppy lead-writing from my chicken-scratch notes rather than what I'd actually written in the body. Mea culpa. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the taxobox synonym ‘’Perovskia pamirica’ is not mentioned in the article text
Added, although there's not much to say there; the original paper was pretty much the only time anyone thought P. pamirica was actually a separate species. Accordingly, I've moved the citation for synonymy out of the taxobox, as it is now cited in text, and I find reference tags in the taxobox unsightly when they can be avoided. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • are the redlinked subfamily, tribe, and sub tribe really needed in the taxobox?
Well, my thought here was that the tribe is a significant topic of discussion in the taxonomy and phylogeny section. If I'm in contravention of current taxobox best practices, I'll snip them. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking the relevant guidelines for taxobox use: "Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article, plus minor ranks that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or which are discussed in the article"; however, only one of the three redlinked subtaxa are mentioned in the article. There's also the argument that some/most of this info about the relationship of Perovskia to the Lamiaceae would be better placed in the genus article. Sasata (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll cut Nepetoideae and Salviinae from the taxobox, then. As for content going here vs. Perovskia, I tried to stick to material that actually sampled P. atriplicifolia, along with enough background context to make the section sensible (there's a reason why people bothered to sequence this species). There's quite a bit more available to expand the genus article if I get ambitious enough to do so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”demonstrated that Salvia was not monophyletic” ->is not monophyletic?
Yep, fixed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Notcutts
Hey, they've got an article...! Done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • oblate, lanceolate -> undefined jargon
Does a link to leaf shape introducing these terms suffice? If not, I'm happy to wikt-link them, as I had to do with pinnatipartite. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A link to leaf shape would be fine; consider also using an anchor so that a click will take the reader right to the defined term. Sasata (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, upon further review, our leaf shape article is a travesty. I've linked to it, out of a sense of kindness, but rather than dropping anchors into an ugly, incomplete, bullet-point list, I've glossed the shape jargon in text. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”0.8–2 cm (0.31–0.79 in)” make sure sig figs in convert output don’t exceed input
Fixed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ensure short-form binomials have a non-breaking space to avoid unsightly line breaks
Fixed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Ontario, Quebec, hardiness, shoot
Done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”both a deer resistant and rabbit resistant plant.” I think the compound adjectives need hyphenation here
Agreed, and done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”Derivatives of P. atriplicifolia have displayed antimicrobial properties in vitro;” what does “derivatives” mean here?
It means I wrote a sloppy sentence. Fixed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was awarded the Perennial Plant Association's Plant of the Year award." It was awarded ... the award. Can a plant species be given an award? Would it be better to say something like "it was selected as the Perennial Plant Association's Plant of the Year"?
Sure! They have a little ceremony and everything, and the media gushes on how elegantly all the herbaceous plants dress up for the occasion! Fixed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the insect species Tropidion castaneum and Camponotus maculatus." perhaps say what kind of insects these are, e.g. "the beetle Tropidion castaneum and the carpenter ant Camponotus maculatus."
Fixed, hopefully, albeit with a slightly different construction than proposed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but is distinguished by its bipinnate leaves." The second citation uses the term "bi-pinnatipartite", which I assume is different than "bipinnate" (although I'm not sure). Does the first cited source use the term "bipinnate"?
Grant does call them "bipinnate", yes. Fundamentally, they're the same thing. Bi-pinnatipartite more specifically describes the depth of the margin incisions, but the important part here isn't margin depth, but that P. abrotanoides has secondary pinnation. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • perovskoate, perovskoside, caffeic acid, and ferulic acid were reported from this species here. How about atriplisides A and B (doi:10.1515/znb-2007-0617)? Anti-inflammatory compounds discussed here: doi:10.3109/13880209.2014.997250 Additional anti-Hep B compounds reported here: doi:10.1055/s-0034-1396151
Addressed in part. To partition it off from the more plain-language uses, I've dropped the phytochemistry material to its own subsection. Included the excellent Pharmaceutical Biology article that I had entirely overlooked, and cited that second anti-Hep B paper in passing. I don't want to push the Hep B material too much on MEDRS grounds (it's all from the same research group), although I don't think there's a problem pointing at two papers showing they're playing around with a bunch of extracted compounds. The first part of that section, dealing with the lists of assayed compounds in general, is probably still subject to some revision. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a good thing you pinged on this section, because upon further review, no two studies have gotten the same answer on the essential oil constituent compound list or ratios. I've focused on papers that surveyed the topic (while adding their own answer to the mix...) and have tried to present a fairly orderly summary of this big organic chemistry mess while remaining readable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is more information available on the nutritional composition of the plant (as forage) here that could help flesh out the second paragraph of "Distribution, habitat, and ecology"
I'm not sure there's much to say here that we don't already say in the summary of the previous paper by the same authors. I had this article in my potential-sources bin while helping with the expansion, but I never pulled anything from it. I'll give it a second pass to see if there's something useful; I don't think it's particularly in-scope to go into excessive detail about the nutritive content of this species relative to other Harboi rangeland plants. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and tweaked this structure a little bit. It turns out we've got an article (sort of) for neutral detergent fiber, so that provided a useful excuse to cite both Hussain and Durrani papers. I don't think the article is well-served by digging more deeply into that 2009 paper, though. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • this source says: "... it is often difficult to maintain in greenhouses and nurseries. Excessive growth can lead to blow-over in nurseries, plants out-growing their pots, reduced plant quality, and increased shipping costs ...", which looks like it might be useful information appropriate for this article
Really, really nice source that I'd totally overlooked during my literature survey. Summarized and added. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • First round of corrections handled. I'll get back to this momentarily. Also, thanks for the assistance, Sasata! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Working on a solution to the problems with the article's treatment of phytochemistry. I think most of the other concerns have been resolved at this point. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sasata: I think most of this is in a much better place now. I'd like your opinion about the amount of linking necessary to address the leaf shape jargon, as well as the minor taxa. But otherwise, I think RO and I have addressed all these concerns. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the quick fixes and additions. I have responded to a couple of points above, and will be back later (perhaps with more comments). Sasata (talk) 00:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, thank you for the observations. I have a lot of respect for your mycology work, and I'm happy to have your eyes on this adventure into botany and horticulture. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cited Dumitraşcu (2008), mostly just because he provided a different ratio of peat/inert material for optimal growth than we had from Squire (2007), so I generalized the claim and referenced them both. I'm a little hesitant to do much with Perveen et al. (2014). Their claim is that a couple of extremely minor components of the essential oil have BChE inhibitory effects in vitro. That's interesting, and all, and I wish them luck with further research. But I think we need that further research; as far as I can tell, no subsequent work has cited this paper. And unlike with anti-inflammatory experiments, Perveen's lab seems to be the only one researching potential cholinesterase inhibition. I just don't think WP:MEDRS gives us much room here until this gets at least a little more coverage in the literature. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the lead ("... the plant has been considered for potential use in the phytoremediation of contaminated soil.") still doesn't quite align with what is given in relevant subsection ("This species is also capable of phytoremediation of arid soil contaminated with toxic heavy metals.") Perhaps give a bit of explanation as to why the plant has potential for bioremediation (e.g., from Zamfirache 2011: high rates of growth (even in highly polluted, dry areas), pest resistance, good germination, and heavy metal and radioactivity resistance), and the monoterpenes in the oils improve ambient air quality. Sasata (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded the phytoremediation sentence in the body. Hopefully there's less of a disconnect there. I'm constrained by the source to being somewhat vague; Zamfirache calls Perovskia atriplicifolia a hyperaccumulator, but that's a term of art with specific concentration ratios required, and she cites her own unpublished analysis to make that claim. I've avoided doing so because I don't think we can conisder that description verifiable. Likewise, I've explicitly avoided her claim that monoterpene emission improves air quality. Other air-quality researchers consider plants with substantial monoterpene emissions to be a net decrease in air quality (even if they smell nice...); for example, this from Atmospheric Environment. On the scope of this article, I think the best way to handle that disagreement is to simply avoid it! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Eric Corbett edit

  • "... and five other compounts" What's a "compount"?
It's a typo. Fixed. RO(talk) 18:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that one, Eric. I had fixed it in my draft text, then somehow managed to paste the misspelled version in anyway. I have reverted your change of "an herbal", though; we're doing this one in American English, where that's actually correct because we pronounce "herb" funny. Consequently, I've fixed all the "grey" to "gray", which is (I think) the last of the ENGVAR issues. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's unlikely that I'll be supporting any article that persists in using "an herbal", but your choice. "Successful over a wide range of climate and soil conditions ..." "Climate" isn't an adjective. Eric Corbett 19:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Climate conditions" is an acceptable phrase in the US: ([2]). RO(talk) 19:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Eric Corbett: You'll be pleased to know that "an herbal" no longer appears in this article. "Climate conditions", I'm afraid I'm going to have to stick with; although I recognize that "climatic conditions" would be correct from a purely grammatical perspective, the former phrase is in very common use in American English sources, including government and scientific publications. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its flowers have been eaten in salads or crushed for dyemaking ..." So not both, just one or the other?
Fixed. RO(talk) 19:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tim Riley edit

Comment – A couple of spelling points: I can't find "activately" in the Oxford English Dictionary, and in BrEng "horticultural" (as in the Royal H. Society) has two "u"s. – Tim riley talk 20:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed and fixed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments on prose:

  • Cultivars
    • "United Kingdom-based" – troubles with hyphens! This is in what Fowler characterises as "superfluous hair-remover" territory. "UK-based", or better, just "British", will get you out of the fix. (Although it is at least arguable that the location of the nursery is irrelevant in any case.)
  • Now "British". I think it's location is somewhat important, since the cultivar wasn't selected there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description
    • "The inflorescence is a showy panicle" – I don't doubt it, but isn't "showy" rather a disparaging word? (In the lead section, also.)
  • Something of a term of art in floral botany, if informally so. Several of the sources use it. Although I concede that it may not strike the appropriate tone for a lay reader. Let me consider what to do here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Planting and care
    • "Reasonably tolerant" – "reasonably" seems an odd adverb here. Somehow "reason" and plants don't sit well together. A less judgemental word such as "quite" might look more natural.
  • Cut the adverb entirely. With cited claims that people grow this thing all the way into Zone 3, I don't think it needs a qualifier. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Third para – I have noticed at PRs and FACs an insistence that the first mention of the subject in each paragraph must be a noun rather than a pronoun. This has always seemed dotty to me, is not the practice of other major works of reference, and I can't find it stipulated in the MoS. Nevertheless, I simply mention it here, for your consideration.
  • If our MOS actually says this, or someone specifically objects, I'll... cry. And then see about fixing it. But I'm inclined to consider that a hypercorrection. Additionally, a quick survey shows that paragraphs starting with a personal pronoun are present in many of our FA-level biography articles. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good! I might start pushing my luck on this point at future FACs I take articles to. Tim riley talk 14:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Third para – if, as seems from the earlier text, the plant is grown on several continents, it seems anomalous to single out a solitary American example for mention.
  • It is grown in many places, but its use in xeriscaping, at least in the literature, is indeed centered in the American Intermountain West. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Landscaping
    • Second para – as above in re opening pronoun.
  • Propagation
    • in order to germinate – "in order to" is almost always an unnecessarily woolly way of saying "to", and I think probably is so here.
  • Nope. From the latter MOS link: "When archaic spelling is used in the title of a work, modernize the spelling in the text of the article but retain the original spelling in the references." Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passim
    • To my mind there are more links than is ideal, and the reader is rather overwhelmed by the sea of blue. As a wise editor put it recently, linking "depends on the context … how likely it is that someone will want to go read that article." I concur, and on that basis would question the desirability of linking to traditional medicine, species description, aromatic, range (biology), shoot, greenhouse, plant nursery, traditional medicine, colorant and textile dye. I shan't press the point, if you feel strongly that these links are likely to prove helpful to a reader at some time.

That's all from me. A most informative article, well sourced and comprehensible even by a layman like me. – Tim riley talk 12:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delinked aromatic, colorant, greenhouse, and plant nursery as either "everyday words understood by most readers in context" or insufficiently specific to the topic (per WP:MOSLINK). Retained links to species description and range (biology) (the latter glossing "distributed") because they are senses of the terms that may not be immediately familiar to lay readers. I would prefer to retain the links to traditional medicine and dyeing as "relevant connections to the subject of another article". The link to shoot was requested by Sasata earlier in this FAC. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – My few quibbles having been satisfactorily addressed, and finding nothing that fails to meet the FA criteria, I am happy to support the promotion of this admirable article to FA. Tim riley talk 14:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I didn't think there was much wrong with this first time around, well formed now. I don't like the two left-aligned pics breaking up the text though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MOSIM suggests that images be staggered. Strictly speaking, that means that the position of the last three images should be reversed, but I'm unconvinced that doing so results in a more appealing layout. I'm self-avowedly a poor judge of aesthetics; would you prefer that we shuffle the images in some specific way? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from JM edit

This strikes me as a very strong article, so I'm happy to support straight away. Just a few very small comments:

  • "stellate" is not a term that the majority of readers will know. I may be wrong, but I'm inclined to say that a link, explanation or rephrase would be good.
  • "It is most commonly planted as an accent feature,[47] but is also used as filler,[51] or in island beds and naturalized areas." Is this a bit jargon-heavy? I confess that I'm only really guessing what any of this means.
  • "has been discouraged by some gardening guides out of concern for its potential to spread,[71]" Tiny little thing, but you claim that "some" books say this, while only citing one. Does your source specify that other books (also) recommend this?
  • "Several terpenoid alcohols—borneol, cedrol, and menthol—[82] have" This strikes me as very unnatural reference placement, not least because it messes up your dash spacing. I'd treat those dashes like brackets: "Several terpenoid alcohols—borneol, cedrol, and menthol[82]—have". Is there anything in the MOS about this?
  • I'll confess that this is beyond the limits of my MOS mastery, but I agree it looks funny. MOS experts, is this an exception to "references are always outside the punctuation"? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is indeed an exception; one might almost say the exception. See WP:REFPUNC: "Exceptions: ref tags are placed before dashes, not after; and where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis." Tim riley talk 07:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well then. You learn something new about the MOS every time you come to FAC, I think. Corrected. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you particularly attached to "an herbal"? I know some do not consider it non-standard, but it's very ugly to my British eyes.
  • Cut "herbal". I'm sad about this, but since there are two editors who are strongly opposed to it... Over on the American side of the pond, that construction is very widely used because we pronounce it "erbal". But I'll grant that it must look largely illiterate to an international audience, so I'll do without. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the sources in detail, but what I saw looked fine- if a source review comes back clean/any problems are resolved I'm happy. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Chiswick Chap edit

It looks a very nice article.

  • I'd suggest adding "Italy" to the image caption "Used as a border in the Trauttmansdorff Castle Gardens" as the country is not obvious.
  • On the cladogram, why the odd formatting and capitalisation of "Other Clade I Salvia"? It looks as if "Clade I" needs some explanation in the text; why is one clade getting a name but not the other two (and is that a 1 or a capital letter i)? I'd suggest that the upper branch of the clade (all the mentioned Salvias) should be labelled to make clear what is being talked about; further, I suggest it would be worth including a wider branch to "Other Salvia" to show the polyphyly.
  • Clade I (it's a capital I, as in the Roman numeral) is mentioned in text, somewhat. Let me sandbox some options here; I don't want to dive too deeply into Salvia cladistics in this non-Salvia species-level article, but I'll see if there's an option that doesn't burn too much page real estate. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sold on the appearance, but I've widened the cladogram to show Salvia Clades II and III. Thoughts? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Know what you mean, but thanks, it's a lot clearer.
  • Lamiaceae remains a little unfamiliar to many readers; perhaps gloss it with "(the labiates)" or "(formerly Labiatae)" to help people along.
  • Glossed it as a family on first appearance. I'd prefer to avoid giving older synonyms for Lamiaceae in this article, as they're somewhat out of scope here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.
  • In Uses, you mention the essential oil in Phytochemistry but not whether people use that essential oil for massage, folk medicine, etc. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not insofar as reliable sources report. Traditional uses were prepared differently, and the massage oil / aromatherapy industry largely sticks to Salvia sclarea (clary sage). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As there seems very little wrong here, if this sails through its source checks as I expect, I'm happy to Support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). I especially like the Uses sect. Conditional support pending someone uploading a sound file free-use licensed to Wikimedia Commons of them saying pronunciation of the title of this article, and then another one of them saying it five times fast. — Cirt (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2015 (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/Perovskia_atriplicifolia/archive2&oldid=1138468896"