Talk:Plant micro-reserve/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 19:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Bobby Cohn (talk · contribs) 12:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Fritzmann2002, this topic is tangentially related to my day job so I was excited to get paired during the GARC. I'm going to begin the review below in piecemeal using the template {{GAList2}}. I will leave a signature allowing you to respond to any inquiries I have, but this template won't allow you to respond using the MediaWiki discussion tools until I've completed my full review and substituted the template. I will be sure to let you know when I've completed that to allow you to respond. Until then, if you have any concerns you can let me know in this thread here. This is also my first GAN review (following my successful GAN) so, for full transparency, in the event that there is something I'm not sure about, I might need to seek additional information or a third opinion. Cheers, Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Bobby Cohn, I'm excited to work with you! This is my first foray out of my primary subject area, so I anticipate there may need to be some adjustments to the article and I appreciate your feedback. Let me know if I can be of any assistance! Fritzmann (message me) 15:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002, after the first pass, I am ready to hand it back over to you. Let me know if I wasn't clear in any of my remarks. Cheers, Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   I've identified some concerns that I have below, and made some optional suggestions. Overall, very good. Placed on hold for the time being until these are addressed.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   I've identified some concerns I had below with regard to inferences drawn and the location of the citations. In addition to a spot check of citations later, these statements I will also verify at a later time, just giving the nominator a chance to ensure their clarity with the references.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Passes Earwig's Copyvio Detector using Turnitin and page links, but without a search engine. I don't imagine a search engine search will turn up much, but the tool is quickly returning 429 errors each day; likely because of the on-going NPP backlog drive. I don't see anything that I'm particularly concerned about in text, but I'm placing this on hold until I get a chance to do the complete check; no action is presently required on your part.

   Looks good. Bobby Cohn (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I'll be honest, I was hoping for a background or history section, and while the article does address the history of PMRs, it is strewn throughout. Question: Do you think the article would benefit from having some of those statements identified, pulled out or repeated, and grouped together? Either answer is acceptable, I just want to get a sense of your thoughts on the matter. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

   Unfortunately there really isn't much info on the over-arching history of the concept. I originally had a background section sketched out, but once I was mostly done with it I realized it wasn't discussing PMRs anymore, rather just the general idea of conservation... something rather too broad for this niche of an article. Fritzmann (message me) 18:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

   That's fair, thanks for your response. Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Excellent job on summary style and information presentation. Some small clarity issues may affect this, but overall adequate.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   It's hard to argue that there any WP:DUE/WP:UNDUE concerns about a nature preservation site, and I don't see anything here to suggest one. I am curious, is there any literature or feedback that suggest the existence of criticisms or the failings of PMRs? Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

   I did my best to compile these in the "shortcomings" section, but they are really just mentions of potential issues or small-scale problems that have arisen in individual projects. I did not find a single article that was in opposition to the concept of PMRs; all of the criticisms were their proponents pointing out possible problems.

   That's what I assumed, and my quick BEFORE-style check confirms that there hasn't been any condensed and targeted opposition such that I have any DUE/UNDUE concerns. Thanks for your response. Bobby Cohn (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All the images are adequate and meet the standard of a GA, it's just too bad there isn't a great, high resolution image on the commons to deliver a clear representation of the topic. Criteria 6 is adequately satisfied for this GAN.

   I moved an image to the lead; I agree it isn't perfect for illustrating the concept but it's better than nothing.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   You've reasonably addressed all the concerns that I've had about this article. To me, this looks like a Good article!

First pass

Lead

• "centers around": is this a geographic proximity rule? If not, consider "focuses on" (1A)

• I wouldn't say a rule per se, but geography is a requirement. The PMR must be physically centered around a single habitat or species; they aren't supposed to straddle many niches.

• "that targets rare or threatened plant species, protecting the species' main populations from further decline" is a tricky one. "targets" doesn't quite feel right here and the "the" compounds the complexity, it could be dropped. I understand that this is the immediate lead, can it be clarified or reworded at all? I'm hesitant to suggest the use of "focus" again, but unfortunately I don't have a real suggestion to make. (1A)

• Changes "targets" to "conserves", and reorganized the lead a bit. Hopefully the first sentence isn't too vague now but I think that flows better.

• "obtained" suggests government ownership, contradicting "may be located on ... private land", either clarify or consider "established" (1A)

• Reworded

• "It has been proposed by PMR advocates to apply the concept in Madeira, China, and in various parts of Italy." consider rewording so as to not use passive voice. (1A)

• Done

Characteristics

• "a 2014 planning document described them" according to whom? Suggesting "a 2014 LIFE programme planning document" to specify, given the source.

  Followup, I see the link earlier, but I still have a concern about clarity.

• I agree, added a link which can't hurt the clarity

• "centered" again. Same concerns as previous, consider "encompass" or different word; I get the sense it implies a radius-driven designation. (1A)

• Rewritten with "focused"

• "while elsewhere in the Mediterranean the upper limit is 100 hectares." Previous sentence uses citation for exact figures, is there a citation available here? (2B)

• This sentence is covered by next citation, which gives the exact figure (p.2 of Médail 2021)

• "In an ideal scenario," suggests Wikivoice is taking a stance or opinion, please cite and acknowledge the source of the opinion inline, i.e.: "Organization A or Researchers at University B say that the ideal scenario ... " (2B)

• Changed to "proponents of the concept"

• "In some cases, governments may have the authority to seize and conserve land; however, the area of a plant micro-reserve must be obtained voluntarily." Contradictory and unclear, please clarify. I assume the following sentence "Private or public entities can turn over land to be managed as a PMR, but this agreement is permanent and not revokable" is grouped as it follows the same train of thought, before the paragraph jumps to how the boarders are set, but there is no citation to this first half of the sentence. Please cite both or, if the entire paragraph preceding the citation is confirmed in "Laguna 2001, p. 19-20.", please open it with a citation after the first statement. (2B)

• Rewrote to clarify that governments can seize land for other types of preserves, but not PMRs. Per WP:CITEDENSE, citations are not required after every sentence if it is clear that the next citation covers a series of sentences.

• Same concerns about citations to specific claims in the final paragraph. (2B)

• Same response that WP:CITEDENSE does not require additional redundant citations

• Main takeaway with this section: this seems to be overall contradictory, the section is introduced by way of saying "While the precise definition of a plant micro-reserve may vary based on which country it has been established in," the later part of the section goes on to give some rules and talks about them as if they apply to all. I would suggest either incorporating a citation to a regulatory instance where the regulations are promulgated or specify where the different rules have been applied. Either way, this needs to be brought into clearer view.

  I've made some minor clarifying edits throughout the section to try to clear this up. Where there are major differences, I have specified the places in which those occur. However, where there is no specification given those rules are present across most PMRs or are considered consensus for the concept. I think that's the most difficult part of this article: it is about a concept rather than a strictly defined legal precept; various entities have written laws about the concept, but this article is about the general concept and not the specific frameworks.

• Optional:
  • "Smaller sites may be characterized by a spring, small islet, or coastal cliffside. Larger sites might have such pressures as skeletal or saline soil, or rocky scree." If possible, consider giving location based examples here: ", as found in Cyprus's Such-and-such island" or " in This province". Are there any PMRs that have Wiki articles, or are located in places that have Wiki articles, and where they are mentioned in the article?

• • I looked at all of the examples given in the linked ref and looked up all of the listed examples, and none of them have wiki articles (Illot de la Mona, Fuente del Puntalejo, Serra de Serrella-Barranc Fort, to name a few)

Purpose

• "and shorter path to conservation without a lengthy bureaucratic process by requiring a simple contract of only one or two pages for establishment": wordy and the tense between the first and second parts separated by and does not match. (1A)

• Rewrote and reordered the last two sentences

• "In nature reserves, focus is usually on protecting animal species; PMRs make up for that by focusing on plant species" Make up for what? Unclear. (1A)

• Cut and simplified

• " are inadvertently harmed by conservation efforts." (2B)

• Covered by the citation at the end of the paragraph

Shortcomings

• Good section, no obvious errors. I presume that in the second paragraph, everything will be found in the same citation.
• Optional:
  • "Specifically, the wide range of scale in conservation efforts in Europe, from Nature Monuments of just a few square meters to National Parks of massive size, mean that PMRs have to compete and fit into a chaotic patchwork of regulations." I love a dependent clause, I'm guilty of this in my writing, but this section may be a little complex. (1A)

• • Agreed, split to simplify the idea

Project histories

• "Characterized by high concentrations of rare species that require specific types of forested environments to thrive, there was no official protection for WKHs under Latvian law." This seems to be two distinct ideas, linking themn together in the same sentence has obscues the point trying to be made here. (1A)

• Definitely, tied the first clause to the previous sentence and split off the second into its own

• "Each of the seven reserves targeted a different species of importance to the European Community: Androcymbium rechingeri, Anthemis glaberrima, Bupleurum kakiskalae, Cephalanthera cucullata, Hypericum aciferum, Nepeta sphaciotica, and Phoenix palm groves." The order here is causing a bit of a WP:SEAOFBLUE issue, and I think reorganizing would help for clarity. Is there a way to rephrase such that European Community earlier in the sentence? (1B)

• Excellent idea, I relegated the species lists to notes here and in two other places, which I think makes it flow a lot better

  This is a particularly elegant solution, better than my idea of re-wording. Well done. Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Optional:
  • More of a side-note, and I'll make it here but this applies throughout the article. Some people really hate redlinks in GAs but there isn't a rule against them. I'm indifferent, and my recent GAN had them. However, and I make this recommendation as a microbiologist myself, you may find it beneficial to create redirects to the genus using {{r from species to genus}}. If you do this, note that in one case I found that there is a redirect at the genus to a different name, so also keep in mind it may need to avoid double redirects, ensure to use {{r avoided double redirect}} as well.
    • Please don't create species redirects to genus; if you look at the talk page of that template, it's clear that's there is no consensus for these, and their creation should not be encouraged. Esculenta (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposals and future development

• "Because Sicily has no regulations that protect wild plants, a 2013 proposal called for a PMR to protect a population of Silene hicesiae on Panarea island." I'm concerned about the dependent clause inference here, ensure that these are not related simply because of their connection, but that this specific implication is verified in a source. (2B/2C)

• Removed the dependent clause

Response

Bobby Cohn, thanks for a thorough and thoughtful first sweep. I believe I've responded to all of your points, if any of them require further action please let me know! Fritzmann (message me) 18:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Second pass

Thanks for responding to and addressing my concerns above. I am satisfied with the prose following your changes (1), and I concur with your rational and responses for criteria 3 and 4. 5 and 6 were already satisfactory. Regarding adequate citation, I've summarized the results of that in my second pass below:

• Quotations: All quotations are cited. I'll note the use of "enclaves" in "Project histories" relies on the following sentence's citation but it is confirmed in Bancheva et al. 2014, p. 14. Wouldn't hurt to move this up or reuse the source but this is fine, especially given your interpretation of CITEDENSE.
• Reference spot check: The results of my python script for 25% of your citations gave the following random list to be checked:
  • 6: Confirmed in both instances.
  • 10: I have hunting returning a Ctrl+F for page 17 (and some other locations) under "§ Forbidden activities" but not seeing anything to confirm on page 20. While this content is confirmed in the source, can you ensure the citation is correct here, or am I missing anything?

    The PDF has different pages than the paper itself; the table of contents gives the correct page

    I see.

  • 15: Confirmed.
  • 17: This is an adequate summary of the content given on this page, well written. Confirmed.
  • 18: Again for the Laguna 2001 citation, page 13 is the cover page to a chapter "Section one: the plant micro-reserves network of the Valencian community" with no text. Can you confirm the page number for the citations in both these instances, or copy (with respect to WP:NFCC) in part the supporting sentence(s) for these claims, I am unable to find them.

    Same here, the table of contents gives page 13 as the "Introduction" which is where these citations come from

    Okay, my suggestion then would be to instead of indication p. in the source, give a page range (pp.) or specify chapter (ch.). Either way, confirmed.

  • 19: You've cited Fos et al. 2017 with pages 383-389 and specifically 386, but the location of that article in the linked Plant Diversity shows that article goes 314-330. Please confirm page number, or point out if I've mistaken something.

    The NIH website linked in the reference gives the page range as 383-389; it may be located at different pages for different publications

    That's weird, I think my habit is to follow the DOI link on the page because that is typically how I get access through my organisation. Apologies for any confusion. Confirmed.

  • 21: Confirmed, as above.
  • 23: Unable to confirm "The project area was especially fit for PMRs because of its wide array of climates and elevation." Review, or direct me to the spot please.

    "home to a rich variety of habitats and a high plant diversity... assortment of climates... mountains with heights up to 1839 m" and so on. Right at the end of page 13 as notated in the source

    Okay, I see how you got there. Thank you.

  • 29: Confirmed.
  • 32: Confirmed.
  • 38: Confirmed.
• Content that could be reasonably challenged: I see no spots that I could reasonably place a maintenance tag where it is not immediately followed by an adequate citation.
• Any original research: This is good, everything I mentioned in my first pass, I said it because I was concerned about drawing inferences from the sources. Not quite WP:SYNTH, but in a well-researched but argumentative paper kind of way. In these instances, I made sure the content could actually be found in the later citations. There was nothing that I found that could be considered a misplaced statement or fact, or a statement argued in wiki-voice that was not already established by the sources.

Summary: I think you did an excellent job, @Fritzmann2002:. There are some minor page issues with the sources where either I am unable to locate the specific text to confirm, or the page number is off (I believe this may be the case in some instances as the section is relevant, but the PDF may use weird numbers). Either way, the last issues I'm looking to address before approval is some of the issues with the spot-checks on the citations. Bobby Cohn (talk) 01:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bobby Cohn: I think the reference verifiability issues were just discrepancies between the PDF and the source. Where they don't agree, I use the page numbers in the source so it is easier to find if someone downloads a different PDF or format. Fritzmann (message me) 02:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002 I see, sorry for any confusion with regards to the page numbers. I've been able to verify all the content and I think you've adequately addressed any of the concerns that I had about the citations and verifiability. My one suggestion would be to, instead of using "p." indicating a specific page, suggest "pp." or "ch." for clarity. But otherwise, this is a great article and a good read. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Closing remarks

Great job on the article. Approved! Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.