Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia lemanniana/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 via FACBot (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Banksia lemanniana edit

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about yet another banksia - it is concise, comprehensive and I cannae think of anythin' else I can do to better it. Been trying to space banksia nominations so am not too repetitive. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

All images have an appropriate license and look good. One minor tweak, though:

o k, tweaked now, how is that? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Under author, please cite the author of the original map SVG and list yourself as the author of the derivative. – Maky « talk » 22:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed this myself. Hopefully it's all good and no problems that I'm missing with the original map. – Maky « talk » 23:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are image alts now required (again)? If not, ignore. (Sorry, this is my first visit to FAC in more than a year.) – Maky « talk » 06:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

seems to vary - most of the time I am not asked these days and I can't see them mentioned on the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Maky edit

Good article. Only a few minor issues. – Maky « talk » 07:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I feel like the first sentence or two of the lead should state "what" and "where" the species is. In this and your other banksia articles, "where" is answered several sentences in. Personally, it makes me itch to skim ahead or scroll down for a range map. I'm just curious about your thoughts on this. I'm not saying it needs to be changed.
yeah, tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At what point does "Banksia lemanniana" get abbreviated to "B. lemanniana"?
yeah, this has been a tricky thing to navigate - convention seems to waver between unabbreviate if starting a para to unabbreviate if starting a sentence. I've previously abbreviated at the start of sentences and been changed by others. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there's an ongoing fight over this "standard" <*cough*>, then I'll stay out of it. As long as you've considered it during the writing of the article, I'm fine with the outcome. – Maky « talk » 22:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...it was named in honour of Charles Morgan Lemann." – I think noting that he was an English botanist in the lead is important, otherwise casual readers are left wondering, "who was he?"... especially since he's red-linked.
yeah, tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the common names widely used and unique to this species? If so, should they be mentioned in the lead and in bold?
unique? yes? widely used? hard to say - they are mentioned, but the species is not widely written about and most scientific journals stick to latin names...my feeling is they are notable enough relative to the notability of the species to leave there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. – Maky « talk » 22:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure why "(Meisn.)" is used with the synonym (no space after the species) in the taxobox.
space left out by accident. Authorities left in as sometimes the same name is used with a different author and might require clarification - i.e. two authors use a binomial and later turn out to be different species so each will be listed as synonym to that taxon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining. I hadn't seen that before. – Maky « talk » 22:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shrub in cultivation, Kings Park, Perth, Western Australia" – Maybe I'm just anal or evil or both, but I tend to delete what I see as pointless location information in image captions. Am I missing something? Is there some encyclopedic value to the fact that this photo was taken in Kings Park, Perth, Western Australia (in the article, not in the description on Commons)?
Kings Park is a notable venue (and location of the WA herbarium) where you can see alot of rare WA plants in cultivation. I think it helps give context. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright... Could the caption be made more informative (to sound encyclopedic)? For example: "B. lemanniana has been cultivated at the Western Australian Herbarium." (That is where the photo was taken, right?) Also, if this species is cultivated there (and it's one of the most important herbariums for native Australian species), its presence there might merit a brief mention in the "Cultivation" section. ...Sorry, I just like informative captions that actually say something. I'm also tired of people trying to popularize their favorite destinations, home towns, local zoos, etc. with similar image captions. (That's not the case here, but it sets a precedent.) – Maky « talk » 22:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
just double checking on correct name..(i.e. WA herbarium vs KPBG) now at Western Australian Botanic Garden as correct name Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorry I'm so anal about that, but I on a lot of professional news sites, image captions are very informative and almost always complete sentences. Although not required here, I would like to see more of it, but not for the purpose of popularizing a attraction unrelated to the article. – Maky « talk » 21:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason the range map isn't used in the taxobox?
Hesperian started that ages ago - I think mainly as the taxoboxes were so long that it made sense to break up the column. I've generally just followed on but been in two minds about it. There are a bunch of older articles that should be tweaked if we feel this one should be I think.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If others are fine with it and it's not required to be in the taxobox, then I'm fine with it. – Maky « talk » 22:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No speculation about the identity those nonflying mammalian pollinators?
not for this one :( - generally it needs someone to do the fieldwork to confirm...I suspect mice Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mice? Not a marsupial? Anyway, it's a shame... The tale of its evolution would be fun to know. – Maky « talk » 22:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Good work! – Maky « talk » 23:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jim edit

Support. I couldn't see anything significant to add to Maky's comments; none of those look like deal breakers, and I'm sure you will deal with them appropriately, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Michael Goodyear edit

  • I would replace all red links by proding at least a stub class article to link to
stubs made Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A {{TaxonIds}} box is a helpful summary feature
interesting - I have never seen this before. Added - found a couple of the external numbers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would include a {{commons}} link under wikispecies
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taxonomy: Isn't Main a better hat here than See also?
makes sense - done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you would maintenance a lot easier, if you either placed all references in reflist=, tided and alphabetised, or use {{sfn}} and an ordered bibliography. Not a dealbreaker though.
not a fan of all sfns and bibliography as I think it is unnecessarily complex. Bit tired now but might get to ordering refs as mentioned above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not a big fan of 'External links' - if you used it - reference it --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough, removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM edit

Very nice, as ever. Some very minor comments:

  • "They are dull green, sometimes with a reddish tinge" What are? The cotyledons or the seedlings?
cotyledons. I changed "they" to "these" to try and clarify without being too repetitious. If you feel this is still ambiguous we can go with, "The cotyledons are..." Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prodromus systematis naturalis regni vegetabilis" The article on the work capitalises this differently; perhaps one should be corrected? (See also footnote)
title cased both now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has sometimes been misspelt "lehmanniana"" Should this be included as a synonym?
it's not listed as an orthographic variant - possibly because it's never appeared misspelt in a peer-reviewed paper but only in some tertiary sources or catalogue somewhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "series" Should be linked
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Professor Pauline Ladiges" Why do you include her title, but not the title of others?
she was described as such....but by now maybe some other folks are...have removed it now anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "clade" should be linked at first mention
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the "isolated populations" included on the rangemap? If not, perhaps mention in the caption?
  • What makes the Nikulinsky source reliable? Also, why italicise the name of the gallery?
She is a notable artist that worked (works?) closely with Alex George. Italics as the work= parameter is italicised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hooker's journal of botany and Kew Garden miscellany" Capitals?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link some journal titles, but not others, in the footnotes. Also, perhaps change article titles to sentence case (there are a couple of small changes to be made, I think) and book titles to title case (EG, "Australian seeds: a guide to their collection, identification and biology")?
I think all done now like that suggestion Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Year of description category?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No major quibbles. Will no doubt be happy to support once these small fixes are made. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I could probably quibble some more with source formatting, but that's pretty tedious, and I think we could have legitimate disagreements anyway. If you're happy, I am too. J Milburn (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx/much appreciated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Evad37 edit

  • Prose looks quite good, only quibble would be that in the lead "5 m (15 ft)" would read better if it was spelled out as "five metres (15 ft)"
hmm, not sure about this - have not converted to numbers and unabreviated if imperial units come after before... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant clause of MOS:UNIT is "In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times, but symbols may be used when a unit ... is used repeatedly, after spelling out the first use". - Evad37 [talk] 03:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
aah ok, done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external link boxes leave a lot of whitespace to left of them. I would suggest using the inline versions of the commons and wikisource templates, with an == External links == heading.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By "inline versions" I meant {{Commonscat-inline}} and {{Wikisource-inline}} - Evad37 [talk] 03:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
aah I see, done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference formatting—sources not checked
    • Ref 7 should have |format=PDF
    errr...I've been removing these as I was told somewhere the parameter was unnecessary (?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's like, the opposite of what I was told. Template:Cite_web#URL says "Note: External link icons do not include alt text; thus, they do not add format information for the visually impaired" which is why the format is needed (except for HTML which is implied by default). Also, not all skins show all or even any of the icons, e.g https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:External_link_icons&useskin=minerva shows that mobile users see no icons. - Evad37 [talk] 03:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 11: "self-published" is after a period, so it should be capitalised. Also suggest linking author to Philippa Nikulinsky.
    done x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 12: I would suggest using |via=[[Wikisource]] to indicate Wikisource as the content provider that is not the original publisher.
    done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 21 is showing a "|displayeditors= suggested" message
    ? - nothing coming up for me..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... I think it's coming up for me because I added some custom CSS or JS to show all the CS1 error messages, so I could more easily clear the CS1 error/maintenance categories from articles I work on. The error message links to Help:CS1_errors#displayeditors. It might still be worthwhile resolving this in case in the future template/module changes result in a displayed message, or change the way citation is rendered. - Evad37 [talk] 03:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No other issues that I can see - Evad37 [talk] 02:49, 19 January 2015 (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_lemanniana/archive1&oldid=1145618284"