Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Persoonia terminalis/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) 22:33, 27 February 2016 [1].

Persoonia terminalis edit

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC), {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, my main reason for spamming the 5000000th article spot was this - I tried to hit the goal with an article that was improvable to FA standard to show folks that new articles could still be buffed to this level...to show just how much there was still to write. So here we are. This is sort of a co-nom as a bunch of folks have helped along the way - Chevvin, Checkingfax, Koavf, Northamerica1000, Sandstein, ‎Mike Peel, Sasata and many others who chipped in a few edits here and there. Anyone who feels they did a good bit of grunt-work and wanna be co-nom are welcome to put their name to this nom. This was one of the most collaborative articles I've worked on. So have at it folks....I'm here to buff it to the goodest I can....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominator As an aside, I would be honored to be co-nominated and I will happily improve the article however reviewers see necessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nominator – Yee haw! Count me in. Why is this nom in an archive? Ping me back, Casliber. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sainsf edit

I would indeed be honored to be the first to give my comments on the 5,000,000th article. I think some improvement and copyediting is needed here, though the article is fine overall. Here we go!

Lead edit
  • ...it was described as a species by Lawrie Johnson and Peter Weston in 1991 please add "his colleague" before "Peter Weston"
    • Done.
  • You can link Australia, described
    • Done.
      • We generally don't link continents - there are enough bluelinks with states and localities.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that can vary with articles. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we seriously need a link for leaf?
      • Similar to australia - linking too-general terms generally unnecessary so removed.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... with subspecies terminalis ... Better write P. t. terminalis, it is the way in many other articles I have seen.
  • Directly naming a subspecies (in the sentence in the previous comment) before identifying both by their name in a separate sentence may confuse readers.
  • ...with narrow short leaves to 1 centimetre (0.4 in) in length Should the "to" be removed or is a measurement missing?
    • Changed to → up to.
Taxonomy edit
  • Persoonia terminalis was first treated by Lawrie Johnson of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney in the 1981 edition of Flora of New South Wales as a distinctive subspecies of Persoonia nutans, a broadly defined species that included many forms later classified as separate species. I think we need a rearrangement in this long sentence to make it more readable and easily comprehensible. It could be broken into two sentences. Also, is the description of P. nutans really needed? It is adding to the length of the sentence.
    • I agree the sentence is long and needs rejigging. How it goes is this - P. nutans was a bit of a dumping ground for a bunch of similar-looking plants in Eastern Australia - so folks made some preliminary splits as undescribed subspecies. P. oxycoccoides gets split from nutans and then terminalis gets split from that. So I do think the explanation of P. nutans is important context...will work on this today. I have split the sentence Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sainsf - I did split it....I do think we need the context of nutans. Are you thinking we should somehow rejig the start of it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed it just now - it looks excellent! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queensland botanists Trevor Donald Stanley and Estelle M. Ross classed it as a subspecies... Replace "it" by P. terminalis so as to avoid confusion with P. nutans.
    • Done.
  • ... though considered it more likely to be a species in its own right I think "they" is missing.
    • added - I often drop pronouns like this and other folks pick me up on it. It sounds natural to my ears to drop them but happy to concede I am a tad too parsimonious with words at times..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wish writing was as simple as hearing! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon re-examining these species, Johnson and colleague Peter Weston concluded that there were several distinct species and Persoonia terminalis was described as such in 1991. What are "these species"? Does it also include P. nutans and P. oxycoccoides? I feel the beginning of this sentence needs to be clearer about this.
  • Who is Peter Richards?
  • I think you are not concerned with the genus here, it has its own page. I guess you meant generic name? Then you should write something like the generic name Persoonia derives from the name of South African botanist Christiaan Hendrik Persoon.
  • About Christiaan Hendrik Persoon. Is it relevant to the article to mention how long he lived or what his author abbreviation is?
  • It has been given the common name of Torrington geebung Seems to invite vagueness.
Precisely. But I deleted the "common name" link - too common to be linked! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • P. terminalis has been reported to interbreed with P. cornifolia and P. sericea. If you are citing this as an example of interbreeding in Lanceolata group, you should mention in the sentence that these two species belong to this group.
  • Two subspecies are recognised ... a maximum of 1 centimetre (0.4 in) long You should use any one format of mentioning subspecies throughout the article. This format differs from that in the Lead. I have suggested one common format under Lead.
  • Link or locate Torrington.
  • Just a question-I changed the abbreviations to the full words to try to make the taxonomy look more specific, but should I revert it? 96.237.18.103 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Description edit
  • It has smooth bark "a" missing?
    • ? - no, bark is a word like 'skin' so needs no article in front of it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My folly.Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The leaf link once again!
  • ...that is both leaf surfaces... comma missing
  • The leaves are rougher than other persoonias Needs a reword like The leaves of this persoonia are rougher than those of others.
  • ...although occasional flowers have been seen to July. Why is "to" here? I guess you should be more careful, I have been pointing out several such errors throughout this article.
    • changed to "as late as July" as the usual flowering period is December-Jan but there can be flowers later until July Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...arising at the ends of branchlets When you were explaining the name 'terminalis under Taxonomy, you said these flowers occur toward the end of branches. Now what are branchlets?
    • changed first to "branchlets". Branchlets are merely little branches. As this is a shrub and not a big tree, branchlet is a more apt name than branch... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...each stalk bears an individual flower that is subtended by a scale leaf at its junction with the stem Not sure what scale leaf means.
    • It's a small rudimentary leaf. I have redlinked it for the moment as we have no article nor article section, and mentioned this as the plants wikiproject. If no-one makes a page in 24 hours I will try to make one. I thought some of the more knowledgeable botanists might have a better idea Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see it is Wikitionary-linked now. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A proportion of flowers have a true leaf instead, and are described as auxotelic (inflorescences or axes) I think the meaning of the term can be explained in a better way in the brackets.
    • I just took the bracketed bit out as I don't think it added any meaning Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link style
Habitat and distribution edit
  • Link outcrop
  • Warialda is a duplicate link
  • ...could be expected to be found there as there is suitable habitat I am not being overcritical, but I think due to the availability of suitable habitat sounds better.
    • ok..I have some misgivings though the second emphasises the reasoning so changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both subspecies are found in the Arakoola Nature Reserve... It is weird that though you mention in Taxonomy near which reserve or area the subspecies are found, you do not mention the actual place where they indeed are found there. But you do mention it here. I think the mention of the occurrence of these subspecies should be removed altogether from Taxonomy to avoid repetition or other similar issues.
Ecology edit
  • Link bushfire, pollinate, subtropical
  • Temperate is a duplicate link
  • Colletid bees of the genus Leioproctus subgenus Cladocerapis Would look better if you separated genus and subgenus by "and".
    • hmm "and" would make it scan in a manner I have not seen or used, I went with this instead. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cultivation edit
  • It has been proposed that ... Vague?
    • It was plantsmen and scientists Rodger Elliot and David L Jones who have widely written on Australian plants and published a mammoth encyclopedia on them. So I credited them with it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sending my comments in batches. It is really a trouble with conominators flooding in and causing edit conflicts and data loss! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 06:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • I can pick up where we are quite readily from the page history, so not insurmountable Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so that's the lot. A lot of minor errors seem to have been neglected before the nomination. But let us sort them out together. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 07:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: and @Checkingfax: Working with you has been so splendid! So, after finishing a most precise copyediting and thorough reading, I hardly think there is any other flaw in the article. That, of course, barring image review and source review, at which I am not that good.
Therefore this article has my Support on prose. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thankyou for being thorough and patient. Sometimes this happens when I've read an article a few times - it is fascinating what the eye misses after a few reads. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from JM
  • "with one a component of granite outcrops" It wasn't immediately clear to me what this meant
  • "an area of under 100 kilometres (62 mi)" Do you mean square kilometres?
  • Is there any chance you could cite Flora of South-eastern Queensland itself? It strikes me as a little odd that you mention a not-ancient work by name but don't cite it.
  • Is "recurved" jargon?
  • "Initially slightly hairy (or hairless) and becoming hairless with age" This strikes me as an odd way to say this. How about something like "New leaves can be hairless or slightly hairy; if the latter, it becomes hairless with age. They are..."
  • How big are the drupes? Are we talking rosehips, figs, peaches?
    • they are currant-sized...will look for some numbers... annoyingly not one of the sources mentions a size for them. adddd now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "Torrington-Binghi area" mean "around the settlements of Torrington and Binghi"? If so, presumably we'd need a wikilink to an article on Binghi somewhere? The first page of Google is suggesting that this is a slang word for an aborigine- am I misunderstanding something here?
    • A look on google shows that it is a name that applies to the area (see here), but exactly howto define it - not sure as yet. I've heard the word occasionally over the past 30 years but will try get a correct definition...redlink time methinks.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The '2' indicates it has a range of under 100 km" Again- km don't measure area, they measure distance (also, what does the "R" mean? And is it worth using the convert template?)
  • "It is rated as 3R[c] on ROTAP,[14]" Punctuation
  • Not a big deal, but maybe you could colour-code the distribution map based on subspecies?
    • (groan) will be tricky. Will take a look to see if feasible tomorrow Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, not at all a big deal- if it's not doable, it's not doable. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, with the currawong picture, I think the article looks a bit cluttered at most text sizes.
  • Is there a gender-neutral alternative to "Plantsmen"?
  • ""Holotype of Persoonia terminalis L.A.S.Johnson & P.H.Weston [family PROTEACEAE]". Global Plants; JSTOR 225972." What am I looking at here? Is your JSTOR link correct?
    • The number is not the jstor number as such. Entered the url instead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, great- I wasn't familiar with the Global Plants project. Would an access date be needed? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming that some of your Hunter sources are self-published, so there's no more information to be given in the cites?
    • The only other thing is "A Report to the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service" - not sure how to shoehorn that in to both Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have {{cite report}}- you could do something like this: "Hunter, John T. (2000). "Flora Survey of Kings Plains National Park" (report). New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.1740.2724." This certainly isn't a dealbreaker- I defer to you. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to see this article at FAC. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cautious support. Not as long as some others, but I think that reflects the limited literature. I wonder if the current image placement makes the article look a little crowded. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FunkMonk edit

  • "Queensland botanists Trevor Donald Stanley and Estelle M. Ross classed P. terminalis as part of Persoonia oxycoccoides" If they referred to it as a subspecies, shouldn't it be referred to in an other way here? Perhaps say "as P. o. terminalis" in parenthesis after Persoonia oxycoccoides? FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • they didn't formally describe it at al, so can't call it anything. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He viewed it as a distinctive subspecies of Persoonia nutans" Likewise, (as P. n. terminalis)?
    • It was called Persoonia nutans subsp. D and is mentioned in the footnote. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems remarkable it was named so late, any word on why it was overlooked? Confused for already described species?
  • "though persoonias as a genus" Is it common practice to refer to genus names like this?
  • Support - not much more else to add, so will contribute with an image review as well. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - all images CC licensed, either photos from Flickr or selfmade maps, all with appropriate sourcing. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Koavf edit

Ready for promotion? No one has commented here for over a week and it seems like all objections have been met. Is there anything else that should be done for this article? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are fine, and since images have been done for a while, I'd recommend tagging. 96.237.27.238 (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • 96.237.18.103 has expanded the abbreviations under Taxonomy. Though a good faith edit, I guess it has to be reverted as it does not suit the style here. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • what he's done is expanded those binomials where it is the first mention of a species. I could see a case for keeping these expanded, just as I could abbreviating them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil edit

Support from me on prose, with light c/es made. Accessible and understandable to the fabled reader that we pitch for; ie an intelligent lay teenager, while not compromising the interest of the specialist audience that will be the majority reading this page. A difficult balance with botany; well done here, again, by Cas Liber. Ceoil (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecked inlines 3, 17 & 19. No issues. Ceoil (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2016 (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/Persoonia_terminalis/archive1&oldid=790012573"