Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia attenuata/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 SandyGeorgia 00:27, 27 December 2010 [1].

Banksia attenuata edit

Featured article candidates/Banksia attenuata/archive1

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I was actually expanding something else, started reading about the honey possum pollinators and then it just sort of expanded itself...got on a roll....and here we are....have at it (looks very nice if you are ever around Perth at Xmas time) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images File:B_attentuata_dist_map.png could be captioned to indicate the land mass the range is shown on, otherwise WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking in the article Fasach Nua (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Fails WP:FA Criteria 3, images lack appropriate succinct caption Fasach Nua (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have added more to the map caption, but my gut feeling is it is overkill. Which captions are problematic otherwise? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FA Criteria 3 met in full Fasach Nua (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs/EL No dabs, ref 30 appears to be dead. I'm not happy about url links to abstract-only (i.e. commercial) sites, that's a job for the doi, but I don't think there is actually a consensus against this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was actually a link to the fulltext I got two days ago...oh well.....removed it now Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: The sources all look good and there are no problems with citation formats. A very limited spotcheck revealed no problems there, either. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --Pres N 00:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ I fixed your dubious Shiraz link and even more dubious Bujnsen burner, just a couple of quibbles left Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

used as a street tree and amenities planting — "and for amenities planting..."?

I added for Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and felt tree — some link words missing? I spent a few seconds trying to work out what a "felt tree" was.

felt that the tree and shrub forms Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, an Eocene... — why finally?

dunno why I put that there now - removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No other problems, support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Usual good stuff. A pic of the stunted shrub form would be nice one day. In "The plant develop masses of fine lateral roots which form a mat-like structure underneath the soil surface, and enable it to extract nutrients as efficiently possible out of the soil..." an "s" is needed at the start. Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks - I had a choice "The plant develops masses.." or "The plants develop masses.." ...I went with the former. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

one day I will get a shrub form photo, the need for me to spend time north of Geraldton is growing unfortunately atm the fiscal and family needs still hold sway :) Gnan garra 03:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~

For a 46 kb article, the lead is rather scant. IMO, the information on taxonomy should be expanded a bit, because the discussion in the lead reveals nothing about the apparently continually changing place of this species within its genus, which is discussed extensively in the article. I think that the information on its ecology could also stand to be expanded in the lead.

expanded a bit Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, it's still a bit scant, but looks better. Guess it's just a personal opinion at this point.

~~In the lead you say it is 1-2 m high in dry areas, in the body it says 0.4-2 meters. Which is it?~~

the latter. fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Description, "1933 ± 88 flowers per inflorescence,[6] and another in the Fitzgerald River National Park yielded a count of 1720 ± 76 flowers." Is it normal to have such wide ranges (+/- 88 and 76)?

~~yeah, the range isn't that wide really - I need to reread how they measured but I suspect there was some estimating there (i.e. not counting every one of almost two thousand flowers per spike.. :)~~ ~~Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

okay, what they did was count individual flowers on 20 inflorescences and the number is the average +/- 1 Standard error. I guess the issue is how useful the number is for the general population - leave as is? (I added a link), leave as 1933, or "around 2000" and "around 1700"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the link, I guess it's OK to leave as is. As soon as you change it to "around" whatever, someone is going to come along and ask why you're not using the specific number :) Another thought might be to make a footnote explaining how they got the number, but that may be going above and beyond the actual need!

Taxonomy, "and left it as incertae sedis." Errr...what? (Sorry, my Latin is almost nonexistant, so for this to not be explained or linked at all makes it rather impossible to understand without Google.)

linked and explained. good spot Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution and habitat, "It is restricted to various sandy soils, white, yellow or brown sands, sand over laterite or limestone, and forms an important component" This sentence was a little confusing for me, partially because it discusses two seperate things (soils and its place in the woodland). Also, I think that the second two clauses are meant to expand upon the first, but I think that an "and" may have been lost someplace. Perhaps "...various sandy soils, including white, yellow or brown sands and sand over laterite or limestone. It forms an..." or something similar?

yeah. done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology, "An experiment simulating wet weather before a fire saw a series of Banksia attenuata cones with follicles subjected to twice weekly immersions in water after being heated in a ring Bunsen flame to around 500–600 °C (930–1100 °F) for two minutes." Should this be "wet weather after a fire"? Or is the description of the expiriment backwards?

d'oh! changed to "following". Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ecology, "up to 2.6 km away". Conversion?~~

added Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ecology, "with the three orders the also most common on B. attenuata". I think there might be something wrong with the word order here. Perhaps "also the most common"?~~

yes. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology, "Furthermore, these raised phosphorus levels, brought about by the introduction of the weeds into the ecosystem, might directly impact on phosphorus-sensitive species." I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. You just said that phosphorus may have affected the production (and so uptake) of manganese, but then added this sentence on. So, are there other effects that raised phosphorous levels might have, or is this a summary of the previous few sentences (and hence rather repetitive)?

Ok - the grassy weeds have increased phosphorus content and metabolism, so as they die and decompose, they influence the raising of P levels in the whole ecosystem (although B. attenuata somehow resists uptake). Another effect is that proteoid roots form in conditions of low P. As P increases, the plants have less proteoid roots. A side effect of this is that the changed roots are less able to absorb manganese. P is also directly toxic to many Oz plants as it inhibits iron uptake (says I staring at my garden with a bunch of scorched-looking banksias :(((( ) The last sentence implies there are direct overall effects. This particular source does not discuss iron uptake, but that is the general principle. I can chase one but was wondering whether that fact was too general Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe I'm missing something here... It seems to me like having this sentence in here is rather vague and repetitive. You've already implied that the plants raise phosphorous levels earlier, so the second clause (brought about by...) seems redundant, and the third clause (might directly impact) seems vague after just having discussed that phosphorous inhibits manganese absorption. Unless there are further effects that you want to discuss in depth (iron uptake, etc), this sentence doesn't really seem necessary. But as I said, I may be missing something.

Actually, upon rereading this after a good night's sleep, I think you're right. I removed the last sentence as does not pertain to Banksia attenuata as such within the realms of this study (i.e. the weeds didn't raise P levels of it directly - other things can, such as fertiliser and runoff, but for the purposes of the study this is not reviewed)

Ecology, "A bushfire did not impact on this slowing." Perhaps its just my American grammar, but this doesn't seem right to me. Perhaps either "A bushfire did not have an impact on this slowing" or "A bushfire did not change the impact of the phosphite."

using impact as a transitive verb here, but can change to "influence"

~~Cultivation, "Artist Marianne North painted a highly regarded painting". Painted/painting - repetition?~~

gah! tricky, okay ..........painted --> produced Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments and questions. I look forward to supporting when these are addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! There's just one comment left and it's not a major issue. I've changed to support - great work! Dana boomer (talk) 15:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I did ditch the last sentence on that last point above, is it still confusing? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the one that I struck last, about the phosphorous? Yeah, now that the sentence has been removed it looks good. Dana boomer (talk) 23:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. (oops) all good then :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 26 December 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.