Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia violacea/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 Karanacs 01:29, 30 June 2010 [1].

Banksia violacea edit

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I am hoping in a Freudian neurotic way that somehow by writing about this plant I will somehow be able to grow it (hahaha). I must advise that this article is a bit shorter than other banksia Featured Articles, but I have scoured and scoured and I can say that it is as comprehensive as can be, so have at it (closes eyes and crosses fingers). Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Sources look good, just a couple of nitpicks:-

Brianboulton (talk) 10:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good work as usual; I had only one minor query on a look through:

  • Don't know how this works in ICBN country, but can a nomen nudum be a synonym?

Ucucha 19:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the national botanic gardens thinks so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mm40 (talk) after comments left on the talk page were resolved. Nice job. Mm40 (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Comments left on the article's talk page. They are mostly minor fixes, but I'm concerned by the lack of information on B. violacea's evolutionary history. Mm40 (talk) 16:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by Sasata (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All my minor issues resolved. Sasata (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is generally as a small shrub to 1.5 m (5 ft) high with fine narrow leaves" missing a verb, no? "generally found"?
Now here's the thing. I took out a word here in response to comments on the talk page related to this FAC - technically it doesn't need a "found" or "encountered" yet I agree feels a little short or brief without it. Interesting problem..I can deal with it instead by using the verb "grows". Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it sounds funny if you strip it down to "It is as a shrub." The "as" seems to be superfluous. Anyway, no matter, problem solved. Sasata (talk) 01:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • link shrubland
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unusually for Banksia species, the inflorescences are often violet in colour," Shouldn't that be "unusual"?
If I say it out loud, the adverb sounds more natural and adjectival form sounds funny. I am thinking the reason is that the adverb is pertaining to the verb 'are'. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are quite flattened and lack a ridge along the valve line." any link for valve line?
  • seems to me like the stranded final summary sentence of description could be moved into the lead
yes. a logical place for it Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…instead treating it under the entry for B. sphaerocarpa with the text "Fls violet = var violacea"." Is Fls = flowers? I'd think I'd prefer to have this in words (e.g. "…he considered B. violacea to be a variety of B. sphaerocarpa with violet flowers")
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was an invalid publication, however," What publication was invalid, his 1954 book, or his suggested synonymy (I know the answer, just trying to clarify what might potentially be confusing for others)
clarified Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "B. ser. Abietinae was found to be very nearly monophyletic, and so retained." That clause after the comma sounds odd to me… how about "and so it was retained"?
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • maybe change phyletic order to taxonomic sequence (used previously) instead of introducing a new term
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These enhance solubilisation of nutrients, thus allowing nutrient uptake in low-nutrient soils" repetitive nutrientsx3
I can get 3 to 2 - don't think I can lose another as it might then become ambiguous. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • maybe link biogeography, Banksia Atlas, pruning
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Flowers are an unusual colour, but occur within the bush where they are usually obscured by foliage." Obscured by its own foliage, I'm assuming? Is this unusual (seems it would make it harder for pollinators to find)? Should this be mentioned in the description?
added "grow within" to show that it means its own foliage. Many of the abietinae group (actually many banksias) have flowers within foliage - better for small pollinators to feed while hidden in foliage - not seen a ref for this though. Will now added to description Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the last image extends into the references area and push the columns to the left. Could be fixed by making the image smaller, adding a {{clear}} template (but whitespace, yuck), or, optimally, expanding the text.
The cladograms make good spots to place images, so moved. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • is the Gardner 1927 source non-English?
Many botanical articles are mixed Latin and English - theoretically, the description of any new species has to be in Latin. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • B. violacea's flower spike is roughly spherical... They
reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ''Bentham's taxonomic arrangement of Banksia the inked article has Banksia italicised in the text. Either your version or that must be incorrect
italicized bit of name Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, a well written, informative, well-sourced article. I'm curious, though, why there is one citation in the lede; wouldn't you typically source all or none of it (I prefer the former)? Jayjg (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was an isolated sentence in the body of the text that fit better in the lede actually, and was a summation of other material. I left the ref tag on it out of laziness more than anything else. I often don't have refs in the lede (as the material is elsewhere in the article and reffed there) unless it is a controversial point which may be challenged. For continuity I am happy to remove it or keep Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 30 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Banksia_violacea/archive1&oldid=1046366453"