Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia aculeata/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 via FACBot (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2016 [1].

Banksia aculeata edit

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article got promoted to GA earlier this year (a fairly detailed review by Funkmonk, thanks!). Anyway, I think it is the equal of any of the other 28 banksia FAs. Should be simple fixes which I will fix pronto. and a short article. have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim edit

I'll have more comments later,but just some number stuff to kick off. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why fractions eg 1 1⁄4 rather than decimal 1.25?

someone objected to the use of decimals with imperial units in a past FA, so have been using fractions ever since. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers in a range should be quoted with the same accuracy, so, for example, I'd have 2.5–3.0 cm (1–1+1⁄4 in), not 2.5–3 cm (1–1+1⁄4 in)

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In late bud the end of the perianth has a characteristic...— comma somewhere?

comma added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why Stirling Ranges when it redirects to the singular?

my bad - I use the names in my head interchangeably and changed to the wrong one. Changed to "range" now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

rendering it a valuable food source.— for what?

for animals - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ref 13 (!) is giving a 404 error

have replaced with a 2013 paper I found Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to support above. I was hoping that the food source bit might be more specific (insects? honeyeaters? both?) but it's not a big deal, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

source doesn't specify but is talking in general terms. Correct answer is likely all of the above...thx 4 support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Josh edit

"It does not have a woody base, known as a lignotuber, that many other banksias have." This doesn't quite flow right, for me.

flipped Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It is 3.0–4.3 cm (1 1⁄4–1 3⁄4 in) long and pink at the base grading into cream." It's not fully clear what the it refers to, here.

the perianth - clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The obovate (egg-shaped) seed is 4–5 cm (1 5⁄8–2 in) long and fairly flattened, and is composed of the wedge-shaped seed body (containing the embryonic plant), measuring 1.0–1.2 cm (3⁄8–1⁄2 in) long and 1.5–1.8 cm (5⁄8–3⁄4 in) wide, and a papery wing." Perhaps this could be split; four ands!

split sentence and removed another 'and'... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I personally hate "empty" external link sections like that. Is there a database record or something that could be linked to? Alternatively, we have Template:Sister-inline and similar.

the sister template is good and tweaked- all other good stuff is referenced already Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images:

File:Banksia aculeata map.png A link to the original map image would be a valuable addition to the image page.

agree, Hesperian made the map in 2009 and I can't find the blank one on commons... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. See the image source= parameter: "It was created by Hesperian, using the IBRA 6.1 data...." That is, I created the base map myself, using a GIS and publicly available vector data. Hesperian 00:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hesperian: My apologies! Josh Milburn (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The photos are great.

great subject matter Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all that's jumping out at me. Short, but key questions are answered, and you do have sourced mentions of how the species is little-known, so I'm not too worried about that. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

It seems that you're missing locations on your Flora of Australia source, but I admit I'm not sure how that is handled when there are multiple publishers. Is this perhaps published by CSIRO on behalf of the ABRS? The way you cite The Banksia Book may be viable.

added. tweaked as suggested Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you linking publishers? Providing states for city locations? There's a little inconsistency, it seems.

notable publishers linked, states added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's an inconsistency between "George, Alex S." and "George, Alex".

aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, George's name is sometimes linked, sometimes not. There doesn't seem to be a clear pattern; judging from the other names, first mention in the cites only? What's the pattern for linking journal names?

yeah I think first mention of author names is best. Some reviewers have been keen for journal links. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't both including the publishers of journals, but, if you do, do so consistently.

not sure how that got there - removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're including PMIDs, do so consistently, but I'd call them redundant to DOIs.

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN 10 or ISBN 13?

the books from the 80s didn't have 13 digit isbns... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Josh Milburn (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All sources appropriately scholarly; no spotchecks done. I can't speak to comprehensiveness. (Sorry- that was picky.) Josh Milburn (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that there's some inconsistency between title case and sentence case article titles. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

title cased now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Placeholder / Singora edit

I'll review this next week. Singora (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singora, I'm about ready to close this based on the existing commentary/checks but will hold open a little longer if you still want to review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose, apologies -- I've been unusually busy over the last few days and unfortunately don't have time to review this article. I see it's got three supports, so I'm sure it's good to go! Singora (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thx (big sigh of relief!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Choess edit

In "Description", is "embedded with" idiomatic? I'd say "in which up to ...follicles are embedded".

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In "Taxonomy", "this was only discovered only a century later": I'm not sure "discovered" is the right word I'd use for the recognition of a segregate species. In this case, I might say something like "this distinction was first made over a century later". Instead of "He based the species on...", I might say "As the type of the species, George chose..." The article on B. caleyi links Taxonomy of Banksia as the main article from its Taxonomy section; is this suitable?

tweaked x 3 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In "Ecology", the same article is linked twice: once at "canopy seed bank" and once via redirect from "aerial seed bank". The terminology should be made consistent and linked at first occurrence. I would say "dependent on" instead of "depend upon", although I'm not sure why.

tweaked x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For "Cultivation", is this of interest as an anecdotal report?

yep. added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, this looks pretty good; comparable to the B. caleyi article. The shortness is understandable given that the taxon doesn't have a long history. Choess (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I did not find any significant issues. Everything looks to be in good order and the article appears to satisfy the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 14 December 2016 (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) 12:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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