Wikipedia:Peer review/Bambusa vulgaris/archive1

Bambusa vulgaris edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I plan to take this to the status of a good article at least, if not a featured article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of great info and well referenced, so great job!

If you're working towards GA, then you might start at with the bones of the article, the basic structure, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template. You'll want to rearrange/rename some of your sections to match that. It will also point out a few areas that the article may be weak in, like the physical description, natural ecology, & taxonomy. Generally the article needs, IMO, to lean back some towards the natural species, natual ecology, nat. description, etc. All that great culture info should be in balance (in qty.) with info about the natural species.
Also see the recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Foreign language common names I agree with them that these lists of foreign common names are not desirable.
Some of your refs can be moved to the end of sentences or paragraphs to improve readability. You might also possibly be able to use Bundling if the refs are getting too thick.
In your list of varieties, I wonder if Commons would have pics of some of these you could link the names to. Might be nice to see examples with Commons links on some of them. Keep up the good work! --Tom Hulse (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is it the type species for the genus? Allens (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: I don't think so. Bambusa tulda is very important too. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Type species of Bambusa is Bambusa bambos (L.) Voss (Syn: Bambusa arundinacea (Retz.) Willd.), the thorny bamboo of India. --Tom Hulse (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I hope I have managed to adress Tom Hulse's issues to some degree. Please, check. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Toxicity" section says that the plant "harms the soil", but provides no details about how this is supposed to occur. It is also an entire section for a single, short sentence. I would expect there to be at least some information about a toxin, based on the section title. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Description" section needs to be considerably expanded with a botanical description (but not too technical!). The entry in the Flora of China seems to be a good starting point: http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=242307754. Wikipedia doesn't need all the detail, but as a very rough guide, I would myself expect to include about half the information properly paraphrased and expanded into complete English sentences. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's one concern. I have posted it to the article talk page (here). A solution there would help tremendously in expanding the description section. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Varieties" don't seem to be botanical varieties but largely cultivars. I would move most if not all of this material to under "Uses" in cultivation. Only true botanical varieties should be dealt with in the "botanical" sections of the article. Are there any recognized botanical varieties? The Flora of China seems to treat them as cultivars. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Dieter Ohrnberger (Bamboos of the world) these are all botanical varieties, not just cultivars. Moving the "use" parts to "uses" section. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction. This source clarifies them as cultivars. I am putting them in the right place. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review that first paragraph in Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template#Taxonomy again. Right now you have mostly "Description" material in beginning of the "Taxonomy" section. You also still need more focus on the wild species. Terms like "ornamental", "boiled in water", "cultivated", "used for", etc. go only in the "Uses" and "Cultivation" section. Also, all variety names that are not natural growers in the wild (e.g. a variegated cultivar only occuring in nurseries) need to be separated away from the natural taxa; perhaps in a paragraph about cultivars. For a good example of what they want for a Taxonomy section, see Peter's Schlumbergera#Taxonomy.--Tom Hulse (talk) 12:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving "use" parts to "uses" section. Is there any example of how I can deal with cultivars? Also, I have been looking for an article that gives me good example of how to deal with the taxonomy of a species. Taxonomy of a genus deals with much historical information, and list of specieses within the genus. Any suggestion? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in "Category:FA-Class plant articles" would be a good place to look? Allens (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link Allens mentioned: Wikipedia:Featured articles. Look under the Biology section and start clicking on plant names such as Adenanthos cuneatus. You might be able to approach GA status with a simpler taxonomy section such as Commelina communis or Schlumbergera opuntioides. --Tom Hulse (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I was mentioning (and finally managed to get the link working for) is FA-class WikiProject Plant(s) articles; thanks, though! Allens (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a slight bit of grammatical cleanup (check to make sure the commas-before-and is consistent throughout the article, one way or another; it was inconsistent in the paragraphs I was looking at), and noted something needing clarification: Are the bitter shoots older ones, or what? They're apparently not used for food, unlike the young shoots? Allens (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of grammatical cleanup, I'm spotting quite a few lacunae in articles ("the", "an", "a") and a few other grammatical errors; I'm trying to correct these, but asking the Guild of Copy-Editors to take a look may be a good idea. In addition, I'm putting a number of unit conversions in using the "Convert" template. Allens (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another area that can use some work (I'm trying, but I'm not a botanist!) is linking in, explaining, or replacing various botanical terms; for instance, what are "pseudospikelets"? Allens (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm continuing to work on grammar/style, but I am noting quite a few places needing clarification. I'm guessing that, in the "Food" section, 0.0 grams of carbohydrate but 1.2 grams of dietary fiber mean 0.0 grams of digestible carbohydrate but 1.2 grams of insoluble fiber? That's how I've modified it to read. Allens (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to "cultivation", the mention of problems with meiosis should really be right after the "no seeds" statement, if that's why there aren't any seeds. "When a stem dies, the clump usually survives" - this refers to the stem dying after (uselessly) flowering? Some comment that this sort of thing is common among bamboo may be a good idea. Allens (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under "toxicity", exactly what sort of dosage is needed in order to have toxic effects? Allens (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the picture needs alt text; some more pictures (of, say, the young shoots at the edible stage) might be nice. Allens (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for attempting to explain "pseudospikelets", but the explanation is close to non-comprehensible to a non-botanist like myself (and I am a biologist, with my dissertation research being partially in phylogenetics, so I have some experience with plant terms insofar as they show relatedness between organisms). Also, exactly what is meant by "In Bangladesh, is carrier for deadly bamboo blight for the common bamboo"? What is the carrier for deadly bamboo blight for this bamboo (which is said to be "common bamboo" in the first paragraph)? Allens (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote the explanation of pseudospikelets, check if it works. The Bangladesh pathogen is named (that was a silly mistake). Still trying to determine the color of the shoot, and consistent information on its bitterness. I have worked on most of your concerns, though "cultivation" and "toxicity" would require more work. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much better on pseudospikelets, thanks! Understand on cultivation and toxicity, etc. Allens (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Worked on cultivation and toxicity. Please, check. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Worked on most of the issues raised, and working on the few left. The biggest concern now is the "taxonomy" part. Apparently I can't get across to the kind of information that's supposed to be there. Can someone actually lend a hand? Even a couple of online sources would do, as I'll be able to extract information from those sources. Also, it needs to name appropriate synonyms, not the mistake that was there earlier. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Casliber edit

Made some tweaks - comments to come. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd place the information in footnote 2 into the text proper. In most of the Featured Articles I write, I give a summary of the history, so Banksia marginata and Noisy Miner (currently at FAC) are two examples.

Any extra information on cultivars so it doesn't look so listy

splitting the prose into many small subsections can make the whole article look a bit choppy. I'd combine some subsections - particularly in the uses section which has information split up a bit. I'd take out the section subheaders and place all the like information together there.

Comment. I kept those small sections so that it remains easier to expand. I believe a lot more expansion needs to go into each of those sections. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good point. I'll see how it looks later. The other thing to consider is that the article needs a lead, so any summary-type sentences are good for that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting to the issues. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]