Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia sphaerocarpa/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SandyGeorgia 20:21, 28 February 2010 [1].

Banksia sphaerocarpa[edit]

Banksia sphaerocarpa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC) and Hesperian (talk · contribs)[reply]
Toolbox

We are nominating this for featured article because we feel it is equivalent to the standard of the other recent successful WikiProject Banksia candidates ...ummm, what else? It is quite pretty and several of us have traipsed round the countryside taking some nice photos too. It got a very detailed GA review too from Guettarda. Have at it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 13:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. One dab link, to James Drummond; two images are missing alt text. No dead external links. Ucucha 13:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just got Drummond, and the alt text for taxobox and map images done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good now, thanks! Ucucha 00:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, questions and suggestions by Sasata (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support All of my concerns have been taken care of, and I think I've harassed these editors enough. More importantly, I think the article meets the FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lead

  • maybe link taxonomic, taxa, Wildlife Conservation Act of Western Australia
(done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…although two varieties have gazetted status." not sure what this means
(clarified to "have been placed on the Declared Rare and Priority Flora List") Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Banksia sphaerocarpa var. latifolia" var. should not italicized (also in conservation section)
(got it) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Priority Two – Poorly Known" and "Declared Rare Flora" do these need to be capitalized? (note inconsistent capitalization of "rare flora" in Conservation section
(I'd think so (?) - given these are specific terms in Declared Rare and Priority Flora List (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • link subspecies, bushfire
(linked - I goofed - all teh subspecies should be varieties, and duly changed) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "variety latifolia are 2–2.5 cm wide" needs imperial convert. I noticed that measurements of smaller things (in the low mm range) aren't given converts, I assume that's intentional?
(added - but yeah, when down to 1 mm it seems odd to use inches) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taxonomic history - subsection heading duplicates word in section heading
I scrubbed the subsection heading - doesn't add much anyway Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • link specific epithet
(changed to the more accessible specific name) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "entire or shortly denticulate leaves with revolute margins." denticulate and revolute needs defn's or links
(linked and plainer terms supplied) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this is now considered a synonym of B. incase." this first occurrence of synonym should be linked, not the one two paragraphs later
(done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italicization incorrect for last two species on cladogram
(done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • loosley - sp
(done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Those more derived than the first offshoot grossa also had shouldered follicles." "more derived" needs a bit of explanation I think
  • "They announced that the Ironcap banksia (dolichostyla) warranted specific status," what does "specific status" mean?
(changed) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • sister group/sister taxon - maybe explain for the common folk
(done - bracketed after "sister") Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "George once again recognised variety latifolia as well as naming a new variety pumilio." recognized … naming verb tense doesn't agree
(done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is a larger shrub reaching 2 metres, or occasionally 4, in height." why is metres spelled out here? The number 4 without a unit looks possibly confusing.
(done, imperial units added) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "B. sphaerocarpa var. dolichostyla, first described by Alex George in his 1981 revision of the genus" maybe vary wording so its not exactly the same as the start of the previous description
(changed) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It grows as a small rounded shrub to 50 cm in height" convert
(done, imperial units added) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…gently sloped areas in shrubland, mallee or open woodland." what's a mallee? link shrubland?
(mallee and shrubland are now linked. mallee is sort of open woodland with mallee eucalypts as dominant (small) trees) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…its status is deemed to be in the wild either rare," slightly awkward
(juggled it a little) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "following approval by the Minister for the Environment, after recommendation by the State’s Endangered Flora Consultative Committee." any links possible for these organizations?
(nothing as yet comes up which I can link to for either. Am not familiar with making politics articles on WP) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • link field study, proteoid root, amino acids
(done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dieback from Phytophthora cinnamon." -> add "… from the soil-borne water mould…"
(done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • link grafting
(done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(cont.) Ok, consider all comments above struckthrough. Next: Sasata (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No mention of this recent article:
Title: Isolation and characterization of microsatellites in the woody shrub, Banksia sphaerocarpa var. caesia (Proteaceae).
Author(s): Nistelberger, H. M.; Llorens, T. M.; Byrne, M.
Source: Molecular Ecology Resources Volume: 9 Issue: 1 Pages: 148-149 Published: 2009
I read it over when we were building the article, and for the life of me I couldn't work out what its contribution is. Here's the abstract:
"Microsatellite markers were developed for the Australian bird-pollinated woody shrub Banksia sphaerocarpa var. caesia to study gene flow among populations in a highly fragmented landscape. Eight loci were developed, and in a sample of 40 individuals from one population, the number of alleles per locus ranged from five to 21 and observed heterozygosities ranged from 0.385 to 0.914. All eight loci showed independent inheritance. Analysis of open-pollinated progeny arrays confirmed Mendelian inheritance at seven loci, while null alleles were suspected at the remaining locus.
If there's anything in there worth saying in this article, then I lack the expertise to appreciate it. Hesperian 03:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might be worth a sentence or two to illustrate how modern genetic technology is being to assess changes in gene flow in local Banksia populations due to habitat fragmentation. After I wrote it I remembered that the Banksia Wikiproject has pages for all the variant species too, so it's probably better suited for that page. Sasata (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for help at WT:PLANTS, and Guettarda responded "It's a methods paper. There's nothing there that would be worth discussing in the article." Hesperian 13:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • reference formatting needs some tweaking:
  • page range formatting (eg. compare refs #1 and #18)
fixed a bunch of refs to last two digits only Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ending period after author names (eg. compare #2 and #3)
done Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • is #4 a conference abstract? is there a page number?
it is a conference paper which I have as a big wad sent to me by Lamont. Various bits of it are reffed. Not sure about page numbers. will check tonight Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • italics (eg. #16, #17 and more)
16 and 17 are article titles (in quotes) of journals (in italics) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand... clicking the doi link for #17, for example, leads to the abstract which shows the article title in sentence case, and name italicized, why is it different in this article? (pedantry will be over soon I promise) Sasata (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this what you mean? Hesperian 04:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry if I was unclear previously. I feel almost embarrassed to mention that some authors are separated by "and" while others aren't :) Sasata (talk) 05:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • refs #30 and #31 give et al. after one author, while other refs up to three, consistency needed
got both done Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check: 4 images, all CC-by-SA from Commons with the author listed. Captions are good, except for "var. caesia, Bendering", as while I think Bendering is the location of that plant, it's not really obvious from the caption. --PresN 18:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(clarified as Bendering Reserve) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Okay, this is really picky, but you say in current ref 28 (Markey..) that "only abstract sighted" .. do you mean you only used the abstract as a source, not the full paper? If so, it should be "cited". (this is a pet peeve of mine...CITE, not SITE or SIGHT)
Hmm, must have missed that. I actually have a copy of that in my filing cabinet. Will read and check later today. Hesperian added that I think. I've now read it - that was one of the dryest papers I've read in a while....:) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not concerned with whether you read only the abstract or the full paper.. it's the mispelling that's the problem. CITE. CITE. Not sight. (tickles Cas) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(tinkle) sound of penny dropping...aah. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I meanted "sighted" as in "seen". But whatever, it's irrelevant now. Hesperian 03:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Another fine article from the banksia collective.--Grahame (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, much appreciated :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comment: A comprehensive treatment of the subject. Photos are good, but they all are tightly zoomed in on the inflorescence/infructescence.The article would benefit from the inclusion of a whole-of-plant shot to illustrate habit. Melburnian (talk) 03:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I can fetch one soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And added Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 27 February 2010 (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_sphaerocarpa/archive1&oldid=743169017"