Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fertilisation of Orchids/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 00:23, 9 August 2009 [1].
Fertilisation of Orchids edit
- Nominator(s): dave souza, talk 10:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because it's about a fascinating subject, has reached Good article standard, and is timely in relation to the approaching 150th anniversary of publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species... dave souza, talk 10:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supplement: please note that Fertilisation of Orchids was Darwin's first book after On the Origin of Species, and the first time he demonstrated the usefulness for research and the explanatory power of his theory of natural selection. . . dave souza, talk 23:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restart, old nom. Alt text is clear; unclear if sources and image concerns have been resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jappalang (talk · contribs) is a good one to verify that images are in compliance (or Awadewit (talk · contribs)), and I didn't see that Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) had done a source check, so you might ping her. I noted in edit summary an inconsistent citation style between notes and references: publishers should be separated from title in notes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, have dropped a line to Jappalang, and implemented the corrections to citation style. Many thanks for helping with that, dave souza, talk 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jappalang (talk · contribs) is a good one to verify that images are in compliance (or Awadewit (talk · contribs)), and I didn't see that Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) had done a source check, so you might ping her. I noted in edit summary an inconsistent citation style between notes and references: publishers should be separated from title in notes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restart, old nom. Alt text is clear; unclear if sources and image concerns have been resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a source check, see diff here where I cleared it. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. As per old nom. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, per previous nom. This is an wonderful article. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image issues resolved: one image issue remained outstanding: File:Fertilisation of Orchids figure 29c.jpg incorporates a commons source image, File:Catasetum-saccatum.jpg, which is authorised for use, per Template:LarsenCopyright, but a request to Cookie to forward the emails on Commons:Authorization to use material from http://www.larsen-twins.dk to OTRS (commons:Commons:OTRS) has not yet been answered. I have therefore changed the illustration in the article to File:Fertilisation of Orchids figure 29d.jpg which composites two public domain images. If the LarsenCopyright authorisation is fully approved at a future date, the other image could be restored. . . dave souza, talk 20:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - I had a review and wanted to support before, but things suddenly changed and, well, I lost my chance. Anyway, I just have a few suggestions. 1. The image "Musk orchids in grassland" should be moved to the second paragraph of "Insect fertilisation of plants". I say this because of the formatting problems that happen with the header along with musk orchids being discussed in that area. 2. "After On the Origin of Species was published Darwin " Please put a comma after "published". The "aft" would denote a clause that is explanatory but unessential to the statement in the next clause (the one starting "Darwin"). The next comma, "editions, as", is unnecessary as it is logically part of the same clause and would not be separated (i.e. Darwin didn't do one, then something else happened. Instead, Darwin did 1 and 2 with the mutual verbal phrase "became involved"). 3. "During 1861 botany" Please put a comma before "botany". See "2" and also - this could be read as "1861 botany", as if there would be such a thing. :) 4. Please move the image "Catasetum macrocarpum" down a paragraph. It levels against a blockquote directly above and the formatting seems off. 5. In "British orchids", the section beginning "While the bee orchid showed adaptation for self-fertilisation" could be separated into its own section. The second image could be moved left and to the front of this paragraph to keep the two images from running into each other and giving a small break in the paragraph for readability. 6. If you move that image as suggested, you could move "Catasetum saccatum " to the top and to the right of that section and further remove the formatting problem. 7. At the end of "Further research by Darwin", you have a quote followed by a blockquote. I am unsure about this. Are the two connected? Is one quoting the other? Is there some way you can denote this so it wont be as confusing? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - My opinion on the primary sources is as follows - The work is a scientific book. Regardless if it was later proven wrong or challenged in any form, it was created as a work of science and has the rigor of a scientific work. The primary sourcing is necessary to explain the ideas behind the science. This is not the equivalent of a plot section, as a plot is mostly summary about opinion, instead of a rigorous scientific discovery that is argued. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support and suggestions, I like the grammatical changes and some of the image moves work well for me. Not too sure about the position of the pencils with pollen masses: see how that looks for you. dave souza, talk 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Splitting the paragraph some and moving the image does help with the readability. The changes are much more aesthetically pleasing and really help. The little details do matter a lot. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support and suggestions, I like the grammatical changes and some of the image moves work well for me. Not too sure about the position of the pencils with pollen masses: see how that looks for you. dave souza, talk 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As per my comment on the previous nomination. It is a very nice piece that meets the FA criteria and is very informative. I particularly enjoyed the backcround and botany as recreation sections give a great feel for how natural history was done in the Victorian era with informal correspondance networks and leading naturalists putting notices in popular journals to solicit readers to submit their observations on a topic. Rusty Cashman (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. All my concerns have been met except 1 that was debatable. The article has made it clear that the book, although known only to specialists, has been important and influential, and a worthy complement to Origin of Species. I hope to see it on the main page before the end of 2009. --Philcha (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as in previous nom. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can the punctuation on this sentence be improved?
- He explained the mechanism by which it fired its sticky pollen mass at an insect that touched an "antenna" on the flower, referring to experiments imitating its action using a whalebone spring.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comma followed by a dash: is that the punctuation in the cited source?
- flower is due to a long course of slow modification,—each modification having been
- In my examination of Orchids, hardly any fact has so much struck me as the endless diversity of structure,—the prodigality of resources,—for gaining the
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.