Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Perovskia atriplicifolia

Perovskia atriplicifolia edit

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 7, 2015 by Brianboulton (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perovskia atriplicifolia, commonly called Russian sage, is a flowering herbaceous perennial plant and subshrub. Although not a member the genus of other plants commonly called sage, it is closely related to them. It typically reaches 0.5–1.2 m (1 ft 8 in – 3 ft 11 in) tall, with square stems and gray-green leaves that yield a distinctive odor when crushed, but it is best known for its flowers, which are blue to violet blossoms arranged into showy, branched panicles. Native to the steppes and hills of southwestern and central Asia, it was introduced to cultivation by Vasily Perovsky in the 19th century. Several cultivars have been developed; 'Blue Spire' is the most common. P. atriplicifolia was the Perennial Plant Association's 1995 Plant of the Year, and the 'Blue Spire' cultivar received the Award of Garden Merit from the Royal Horticultural Society. The species has a long history of use in traditional medicine in its native range, where it is employed as a treatment for a variety of ailments. Its flowers can be eaten in salads or crushed for dyemaking. (Full article...)

Most recent similar article(s): I don't remember seeing anything too similar in a good long time.
Main editors: Squeamish Ossifrage and RO
Promoted: October 4, 2015
Reasons for nomination: A recent FA, this is a nice little article on one of the great gardening plants of all time. It is also Squeamish Ossifrage's first TFA.
Support as nominator. RO ^(talk) 19:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I helped RO develop this to FA-quality, and was co-nominator at its candidacy. Plants are fairly poor represented in our FA collection, and plants in widespread cultivation are almost completely absent. I think the article stands on its merits, but further support it appearing as TFA because it is very likely the only FA-quality plant which our gardener readers might actually have planted. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: plants are scheduled for 9 Oct and 19 Oct, and requested for 31 Oct, - possibly not the best timing. The blurb doesn't say when they bloom, - that might be a good time, July 2016, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And there's military stuff scheduled for the 6th, 8th, and 12th, so one more plant won't hurt anything, but early November is fine too. They bloom through the end of October, depending where they are. RO ^(talk) 20:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The military comparison is misleading, because we calculate how many of each type should run relatively, based on the number of similar articles that have not run. There is a considerably larger backlog for military subjects than for plants (and, actually, a larger backlog for military subjects than for biology in general too, and yet here we are running six biology articles in October), and as such we should probably have at least one (maybe two) more military articles this month. Of course, the final decision regarding Perovskia atriplicifolia will be up to Brian; I'm not scheduling any more biology articles for October, except for the one nominated below. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But how can you deny an unspecified date request? Can't you schedule this for mid-November? RO ^(talk) 00:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying it; I'm just saying that I won't schedule it this month. The TFA coordinators switch months; I'm handling October, and Brian will be in charge of November.

It is, of course, entirely within our prerogative whether or not we schedule an article. We recently rejected a cinema-themed non-specific date nomination because we both felt that film had been too represented this year. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is that a non-specific date request ought not be summarily dismissed because similar articles have ran, or are scheduled to run, in close proximity. This could be scheduled as far out as the delegates need for proper spacing, so this response strikes me as a false dilemma. This is the kind of stuff that makes Wikipedia overly tedious, and it contributes to burn-out and lower editor retention. Obstacles like these are waiting at literally every turn, and there's no need for it. RO ^(talk) 16:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not summarily dismissing it. As I've said, I am saying that I will not schedule it in October. I am not closing this nomination, because Brian may schedule it for November. I personally don't mind allowing this to sit for a week or two.

The old rules also made it clear that a non-specific date request was not a parking bay for articles to sit for an unspecified period of time: "Nonspecific dates... The article's targeted dates are the first seven days without scheduled articles after its nomination. ... If the article is not selected as a TFA by the seventh unscheduled day, it will be deemed rejected and may be replaced by any eligible article" I'm not sure why Bencherlite removed those sentences.

If we allow non-specific date nominations to sit for several months (as the cinema article I mentioned would have), it would take up nomination slots that other articles could use more effectively. As such, if an article is unlikely to be scheduled in what the delegates consider a reasonable period of time, we reserve the right to reject nominations. A subsequent renomination, after the waiting period is up, is fine in such cases. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see any likely difficulty in scheduling this for some time in November. I'd be surprised if this slight, reasonable delay really contributed to "burn-out and lower editor retention" – I can think of greater hassles.... I do endorse Chris's view that non-specific date nominations shouldn't sit in the space indefinitely, though I think a reversion to the former seven-day rule would be unduly restrictive. Brianboulton (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an isolated thing, no it probably won't contribute to burn-out, but as one obstacle in a long line of arbitrary obstacles and red tape, it's cumulatively exhausting. How many military topics have we run in the first 281 days of 2015, because I swear there's one every week? Is there any reason why you can't just schedule it for mid-November now, versus denying this request and asking us to come back in 6 weeks? RO ^(talk) 16:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The request has not been denied: Chris specifically states "I am not closing this nomination", and I have said I see no problem in scheduling it during November. It wouldn't be sensible to fix a random date now, when there might be specific claims for that date. You are not being asked to "come back in 6 weeks", or indeed to do anything, other than to wait a bit longer before you you know the exact TFA date. Brianboulton (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well this is only the third time I've requested a TFA, so I don't know exactly how it works, but I hear Chris saying "not this month" and it "the nom shouldn't sit for a month", so it sure seemed like a denial. That's an odd way to explain that it's not denied so much as delayed. If you don't want the non-specific slots taken up for too long why not just make another? Isn't the number arbitrary? RO ^(talk) 16:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated this on the 7th of October. One month from the 7th of October is the 7th of November. Brian will probably start scheduling November's TFA's by the 20th of October; I would not presume to know when he would schedule this article, but I would be surprised if this was left open until the 7th of November. It would not be scheduled for this month, nor would it be left waiting for a month. I fail to see any "denial" there. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Chris. I just misunderstood you. Still, I'm not sure why you didn't just say it will probably have to wait until the first week of November, which is what I suggested right off. RO ^(talk) 15:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the template asks "whether it would be your first FA to appear at TFA", and it is Squeamish Ossifrage's first TFA. RO ^(talk) 16:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic, but removing the "rejected if not selected in 7 days" rule was one of a number of changes that happened when we moved away from a system of points to a system based on the explanations underlying the points. It was a rarely invoked rule anyway - I can't see from Wikipedia:Unsuccessful nominations for Today's Featured Article that anybody ever used it during my time as coordinator. Bencherlite^Talk 21:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. I guess we can use the discussion page to see if we should set a new maximum duration. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - But why not just open up more spots instead of setting a maximum? RO ^(talk) 15:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what I used to do with a non-specific date nomination that I would use slightly further down the line and didn't need to keep open on the TFAR page until then was to close it as "successful on a date to be fixed", or some such wording, then go back and add in the date in due course. That freed up the slot for other nominations, prevented it getting stale (one of the side-effects of more nomination slots is that turnover reduces) and reassured the nominator that the article would be selected in a little while but not immediately. No-one ever complained about this. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Needs Fixed There are three instances of "Cite error: Invalid ref tag; name "FOOTNOTEGrant20072" defined multiple times with different content". I think early Nov is best once this is fixed. HalfGig talk 23:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't know how to fix those,~~ but I'm sure Squeamish Ossifrage will. RO ^(talk) 23:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out what was wrong. Those are fixed now ([1]). RO ^(talk) 23:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will probably schedule this for 7th or 8th November, unless there are irresistible date-related claims for either of these dates meantime. Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I didn't see any issues with the article. Looks fine. Praemonitus (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]