Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia ilicifolia/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 23:43, 1 July 2012 [1].

Banksia ilicifolia edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC), Hesperian (talk · contribs)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I felt the need to "complete" it and make it the best account of the species available. I feel it is of the standard of the other 20 banksia Featured Articles, or if not can be brought up to speed pretty quickly. So have at it. (Thanks to J Milburn for yet another thorough GA review...) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 June 2012 (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, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books, and if so when you include state
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • Be consistent in how you notate multi-author works
  • Use a consistent date format
  • What's with the single bulleted ref at the bottom of the footnotes? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • commented out ref for the time being until we can figure out what it inlines....a relic of pre-inlining days? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article, as always. Partial comments (more later)

Lead
  • Sentence 3: "encountered" - wouldn't it have that form regardless of whether someone encounters it or not? (Tree falls in the forest...)
  • Sentence 3: "habit" might be confusing to the casual reader. Growth form maybe?
  • sentence 5: "change to red tinged" - "become red tinged" might be a better way of saying this since they go yellow-pink-red according to the 'Description"
  • Sentence 5: "...with maturity, which acts..." feels a little clumsy. "...with maturity; this acts..." avoids this (somewhat)
  • Para 2, sentence 2: "Unlike its close relatives" - which do what? (This could either be read to say that other species don't resprout after fires, or that they resprout from other tissues).
Description
  • Sentence 1: "fairly variable" - fairly is just filler, it doesn't add any precision
  • Sentence 3: "Margaret River region" - I'm really none the wiser for having read this. Is this a small part of SW WA, is it a large part of the species range? And although looking back I can tell that this must be WA, I wouldn't have remembered that without looking back.
  • Para 2, sentence 2: lose the comma
  • Sentence 4: "arranged" -> "and are arranged" (or something like that) to make it clear that you are talking about the leaves, not the branches
  • Sentence 7: " petioles 0.3–1 cm in length" - missing inches
  • Sentence 11: " grow outwards from node where the flower head grows from" - a. "the node"; b. ends with "from" (this is especially noticeable since "from" appears twice in the sentence).
  • Para 2, last sentence: " followed by the appearance of one to three follicles" - it may not be clear to all readers that the follicles area fruit that develop from the flowers
  • Para 3 lacks conversions to imperial
  • Para 3, sentence 3: what is an auricle?
  • Para 4, sentence 1: New para, so "it" should be named
  • Para 4, sentence 1: before "however" you need at least a semi-colon, if not a new sentence.

Guettarda (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More.

Taxonomy
  • Para 3, sentence 3: "Incorrectly" published..."corrected" - has this synonymy been verified through molecular or common garden studies, or is this synonym merely George's conclusion, based on examination of specimens? I'm not suggesting that placing them in synonymy is in any way incorrect, I'm just troubled by the strength of the assertion .
  • Sentence 2 seems to run on a bit.
  • Sentence 3: "quite variable" - again, quite is just filler, it doesn't convey additional information
  • Para 4, sentence 1 - rather long, might split it at the semi-colon
  • Sentence 2: "Kuntze's challenge failed" - sounds a little like a cage match; might want to clarify "to gain acceptance" or something
Infrageneric placement
  • Sentence 1: "The group Isostylis" - adding "unranked" would be helpful
  • Sentence 1: arrangement of or by Meissner, Bentham? (I think "by" is more idiomatic)
    • hmmm, "of" sounds more natural to my ears...I'll see what others think.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 3: "the two other species are rare and threatened" - is there an article on Australian definitions of "threatened" to link to? If not, why not? :)
  • Sentence 5: "though" or "although"?
Distribution and habitat
  • Para 2 + 3 are rather short and fit together, so it might be good to combine them
  • Para 4 - what, no articles on Australian vegetation types?
  • Sentence 3 - "understory" is American usage, "understorey" is BE. I think it's Australian usage as well - worth checking.
Ecology
  • Para 3, sentence 1: found...found
  • Para 4, sentence 1: reduced...reduced
  • Para 6, sentence 2: too long, too many ands.
  • Sentence 4: "more closely tied...unlike" - either "more closely tied...than" or "closely tied...unlike"
  • Sentence 5: "as well as" -> "combined with" would improve the flow of the sentence
  • Para 7: moving "like many WA banksias" to the start of the sentence would improve flow
Cultivation
  • The tone of the writing changes here. It's not a problem, but it does feel like it was written by someone else. A more consistent style would improve the overall quality.
    • hmmm, not sure how to address this one. Am looking at it and not seeing anything jump out at me... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 3: "plus prominently..." - "plus" is a bit colloquial. "Combined with" or "in combination with" would be better.

Guettarda (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support now...Comments from PumpkinSky
  • prose has had a good proofing, it looks good
  • IMAGES -- are all "own work" so I see no problem there
  • "rank.[16][14][17]" ... refs should be in numerical order
  • Brown ref, currently number 9, no page number? Or is more of a generic ref?
    • good point - page and url for prodromus added Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks but for some reason it's showing as a bare url and I haven't figured out why yet.PumpkinSky talk 14:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's the linking of the the title that breaks it. I'll see if I can get it to work with both.PumpkinSky talk 15:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Banksia ilicifolia1 orig.JPG...I changed "Albany WA" to Albany, Western Australia because another of the images has it spelled out and it threw me at first as I thought it was meaning "Albany, Washington' (dumb me). Revert if you like.
    • nah, that's fine Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • another great banksia article.PumpkinSky talk 11:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • thx Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Found something else, your 2-digit page numbering seems fine, but on the 3-digit ones, some are ###-### and some are ###-##. PumpkinSky talk 15:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found two, the others are where the hundreds digit has 'clocked' up one or two as it were. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I personally prefer ###-### format, but that's not what's important here. What is important is consistency and you've made it consistent.PumpkinSky talk 22:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • tree in the plant Proteaceae family—I don't think we need to be told that a tree is a plant, but if you think it's necessary it would be better before "family" anyway.
  • 10 metres (33 ft) high (also later) —I'd prefer "tall" to "high", here and later. To me, "high" refers more to location, but not a big deal.
  • English Holly—either lose the "English" or change the link to Ilex aquifolium.
  • red-tinged with maturity this acts as—semicolon after "maturity"?
  • Prolific botanist—I'm not clear why his prolixity is relevant here.
  • although some leaves have all or mostly entire margins—I think I know what you mean, but "smooth" or something similar might be clearer.
    • smooth isn't quite right either, lacking teeth is what it means - actaully that is quite a simple fix.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the "See also" Taxonomy of Banksia, shouldn't it be Taxonomy of Banksia ?
  • range from convex or concave—should it be "to"?
  • publication of the species—species description?
  • Twenty-eight Parrot —if you change the link to point to the "Subspecies" section, it might be clearer why the name here is different to the linked article title.
  • acari... coleoptera... hymenoptera... thysanoptera—taxa above species level should be capitalised.
  • Comment / query. Good article, which I lean to support. Found it fairly technical in places.
  • In "Infrageneric placement", i wasn't even able to guess at the meaning of "circumscription" in this context (whereas other relatively technical passages I was often able to infer the meanings). Can this be reworded or explained?
  • The term "subtribe" is used only once without explanation or wikilink. Given the many different terms used to describe different groupings / classifications / levels of grouping, this isn't really satisfactory. My more general remark is that, for an encyclopedia article about an organism, there seems perhaps too much detail and discussion of classificatory schema. Is this a Banksia thing? Has it been debated previously? Happy to hear if others think it's fine. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. I found that I could just remove the 'subtribe' reference - and this level of detail is consistent with the other banksia FAs - giving enough to give context but not superfluous. I'll have a think and look-over again though. I've trimmed a bit which is not immediately pertinent to B. ilicifolia - bit tricky as I've read it many times. If you see anything else you feel is extraneous I'll have a look and prune if possible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Cas for addressing my specific points. I don't think i could reliably trim this without stuffing it up. If it is consistent with other banksia FAs, then I'm a 'support'. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2012 (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_ilicifolia/archive1&oldid=1144461008"