Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia coccinea/archive1

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 (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2014 (diff).

Banksia coccinea edit

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of Australia's best-known and commercial wildflowers grown for cut flower production around the world. Damn impossible to grow.....maybe if I buff it to FA I will be able to grow it....anyway, I think it is at or very near FA status so tell me what else is needed. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Banksia_coccinea_(Illustrationes_Florae_Novae_Hollandiae_plate_3).jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag

source updated, link now live, US PD tag updated too. sorry re delay. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Australia_Western_Australia_location_map.svg (source for map): source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, coming up with this for me still.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ by Jim Just a few quibbles, otherwise very sound Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Book refs. Locations are inconsistent. Some are by country, some by Australian state (both occurring even with Oz sources), at least one missing.

Oz sources all states now. Two missing locations added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

white or grey sand— neither in the lead or the text is it made clear what property of these sands makes them more suitable than others, presumably can't be just the colour.

need to read up on this - not even sure what to redlink for the moment. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

particularly in the vicinity of Albany— I've been to Albany and Denmark! Anyway, it's not clear why this small town is particularly suitable

Albany's pretty much the largest regional centre..not sure why plants are taller there - sources don't say. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

German botanist Adalbert Schnizlein described it as B. purpurea in 1843.— surely this lonely little para could be rolled into the preceding or following?

slotted onto a paragraph now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I highlighted the sand and Albany issues, I appreciate that there may not be simple answers, so I'll leave those with you and change to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support~~Comment~~ from Hamiltonstone

"Truncate at the apex, they have dentate margins" any chance of wikilinks for either of those terms?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The distinctive inflorescences are terminal". I don't want to encourage a sea of blue links, but in everyday English, i would read this as meaning that the unique flowerlike bits are guaranteed to kill the plant...

linked first - need to figure out second...."terminal" means arising out of the ends of the stems (as opposed to "axillary" or "cauliflorous") and is clarified in the subsequent clause. So how to incorporate meaning without sounding repetitive.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, like this. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that works for me - the word "terminal" is not notable or detailed enough and a simple description is fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"an average count of around 286 individual flowers". Since flowers don't come in fractions (one either has one or one doesn't), how can it be "around" 286?

the flower counts of the inflorescences in the original paper were an estimation - the figure for average was 286±14 IIRC, so I thought "around 286" was the most accessible and accurate without flooding the reader with numbers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This needs some work: "George placed Banksia coccinea in its own series—Banksia series. Coccineae—within the section B. sect. Banksia on account of a unique combination of characters: the unusual vertical arrangement of flowers on the spike is a trait only seen in the series Quercinae and five species within the series Spicigerae, neither of which shares in whole the branched open habit, broad leaves and very small follicles." I couldn't follow this. I think it's because I thought the full stop after "Banksia series." was the end of a sentence. I still don't get why it's there. Then as a whole, the sentence is too long. Plus the word "neither" is attached to "five", which doesn't make sense... and that's just the problems I can articulate. Can you have a go at completely rewording this passage? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have reworded it now - is that clearer? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's better - but we still need to get rid of the full stop after the word "series", otherwise it still appears as though that is the end of a sentence. I don't know why it is there since it does not appear to be abbreviating a word - either delete it or change it to "ser." hamiltonstone (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have unabbreviated and removed some periods Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the comment above that it seems odd that the colour of the sand is important...did you find anything more out about this?

tricky finding a decent overview - I found this and this but am not confident yet. Damn, need to sort out supporting pages.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This needs tweaking: "Applying phosphite to infested areas has been shown to reduce the mortality rates to around 50%.[39] It has shown some symptoms of toxicity to application of phosphite, with some patchy necrosis of leaves, but the uptake of the compound is somewhat lower compared with other shrubs. Unusually, the symptoms did not appear to be proportional to exposure levels". What is the "It" at the start of the second sentence. The Banksia? The infective agent? And i don't think one shows symptoms of toxicity "to" something. The clause "but the uptake..." doesn't seem to follow from the grammar of the phrases that precede it. And the last sentence appears to be in a different tense to the ones before it. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tweaked and tenses aligned now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One more i think. Can i just check... "This immune response, coupled with the fact that it had not been observed in the wild, led them to believe it was not a major pathogen of the species.[41] This species has since been reclassified and named as Luteocirrhus shearii." Can I check that the three words "it" "it" and "this" all refer to the species of Zythiostroma that was subsequently named Luteocirrhus shearii? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yep - would it help to convert the fullstop before footnote 41 to a semicolon? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

I'm happy with this, but hope that Cas's searches shed more light on the sand colour thing! hamiltonstone (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ from Melburnian.

Looking good, my quibbles are of a minor nature:

Sitting atop 3–5 mm (0.1–0.2 in) long petioles - gives the impression that the leaves are bolt upright

changed to "with" but mused on "on" or "growing from"...none of them exactly right - any suggestion welcome (using "with" as the most apt I can think of) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banksia coccinea was described by German botanist Adalbert Schnizlein as B. purpurea in 1843 - sounds like he didn't like the name and randomly changed it just for the heck of it. This needs rewording and a bit of context.

Was tempted to leave it out as it is very obscure and not mentioned elsewhere/ Will look to see if I can find some more info, but for now reworded to give better picture. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it grown commercially in Australia?

yep, added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cuttings are slow to strike, but possible - doesn't need "but possible"

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

registered - with who?

Plant breeders' rights - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think featured plant articles should always aim to include a photo of the whole plant, there is one at Commons.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Melburnian (talk) 05:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Closing without detailed source review; nothing leapt out on my quick scan just now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.