Talk:Acer pseudoplatanus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Happy to review. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 10:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Taxobox

• Why are years not mentioned beside binomial names?

Did you miss the synonyms? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 12:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I have added dates for the synonyms and copy-edited the list. Plantsurfer 13:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• You may wikilink "deciduous", "broad-leaved", "crown", "Madeira" (I didn't know there is a place by this name), "panicle", "pollen", "nectar" and "sap".
• in the mountains to northern Spain and Italy That "to" looks confusing.
• Perhaps use "sycamore" for a second time in the first para? I think the "it" looks a bit repetitive.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Some terms here are bound to look like jargon. I think you should add a few words to explain "deciduous", "crown", "palmately lobed", "panicle", "samaras" and "sap". Any reader interested to know further could click the link, but won't need to chase them just for a short definition. (Repeat in the main article)

I don't really agree with you here. I have removed "panicle" and "samaras" from the lead but I consider the others are either in common use, or like "crown" and "palmately lobed", unable to be explained in a few words.

I support the principle of explaining technical terms, but think implementing that policy inline can be difficult and can interrupt the flow of the prose. On the other hand, leaving the terms out, to be replaced with everyday language, dumbs the article down and makes it impossible for the reader to link out to articles explaining the terms more fully. I have tried to deal with some of these terms, e.g. plamately lobed and samaras, but as Cwmhiraeth says, some of the other words are in common usage, and should not need expansion in the article. Plantsurfer 14:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I see. I am not bent upon this, wordy and unnecessary explanations can be left out. You need not omit difficult terms and make it sound dumb, just add inline explanations if proper. If you wish, we can limit this to the Description section to keep the lead short. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Looked up the article once again. I find it simpler and reader-friendly, thanks to the inline explanations in Description. I feel we have covered the terms that look most jargon-like. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Taxonomy and etymology

• "Species Plantarum" needs italics.
• You may wikilink "type species", "varieties", "forms"
• (from the Ancient Greek) Link Ancient Greek, "the" may be removed.
• Explain leaf insertion.
• Source for The name was later applied to this species and others (see also Platanus) with similar leaf shape?
• I don't think we need such a lot of bold here. Plain text would do.

Description

• In continuation with the last point in "Lead", please explain "ovoid", "bud scale", "leaf scar", "serrated", "monoecious" and "tetraploid".

• This does not seem quite resolved. I wished we could have small inline explanations in the article for these terms, something that was recommended in FAs like Ficus rubiginosa. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Leaf and seed look too common to be wikilinked.

repeat, as above - I support the principle of explaining technical terms, but think implementing that policy inline can be difficult and can interrupt the flow of the prose. On the other hand, leaving the terms out, to be replaced with everyday language, dumbs the article down and makes it impossible for the reader to link out to articles explaining the terms more fully. I have tried to deal with some of these terms, e.g. panicles, palmately lobed and samaras, but as Cwmhiraeth says, some of the other words such as crown and serrated are in common usage, and should not need expansion in the article. Plantsurfer 14:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's continue on this in "Lead". Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

*Refer to the plant either as "sycamore" or by its scientific name consistently.

Done, except for the Taxonomy and Cultivation section where it would be inappropriate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• The Acer species mentioned can have the generic name shortened to A.
• You may wikilink "chromosome" and diploid.
• Why is there a bold name now?

Botany

• Perhaps an opening sentence can be added that highlights the degree of anomaly in the structure and function of flowers? I feel it would be a helpful summary of the para.

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• All flowers can produce nectar, but the nectar...has a higher sugar content I'm not sure what contrast is being highlighted here by the "but", we could simply use a semicolon.
• Wikilink "germinate" and "hybridise", and perhaps "self-pollination"
• Would be good to add a word on why self-pollination would not be preferred, rather prevented.

Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

• Explain "trifoliate".

Distribution

• Wikilink "invasive species"
• The last two paragraphs call the tree by its scientific name, the previous ones do not
• Which places are linked and which not?

I've linked regions, states and counties, but not countries. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Ecology

• "Laurel forest", "nectar", "pollen" and "field maple" are duplicate links
• Wikilink "endemic", "sap", "gall", "dieback", "tar spot".
• Source for Sycamore mycorrhizas are of the internal arbuscular mycorrhizal type, in which the fungus grows within the tissues of the root and forms branched, tree-like structures within the cells of the root cortex?

Cultivation

• Acer pseudoplatanus var. Pendulum Should it not be "pendulum"?
• What exactly is a "weeping form"? A little explanation could help
• One more point, you need to identify "Perry".

I don't know anything about Perry. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think this is not required. The question is whether Knight's partner Perry was notable or not. The connection with Perry is explained in the article on Joseph Knight. There is no separate article on Perry.Plantsurfer 14:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining this to me. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources

• Refs. 8, 20, 26, 29, 35, 36, 38, 50 need proper formatting
• Ref. 19 needs the publisher
• Access dates are needed for websites
• Some page ranges occur in the main article, and others in the reflist. I think they should be in one place. And is the page range incomplete in ref. 34?
• Some refs. need italics for scientific names

Re-reviewing the sources,

• The page range format still looks inconsistent. For example, the books cited in refs. 11 to 17, 21, 24, 28, 34, 46, 54, 62, 63, 73 have some pages mentioned in the text (like inner bark.^[13]:118) or no page range included, while others (26, 27, 31, 32, 40, 42, 58, 75) have the page range mentioned in the reflist. I have converted those for which I have information to inline page numbers. Any that are missing now I lack data for, having been introduced by others.Plantsurfer 18:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Ref. 34 can do just with the year
• Just some FAC nitpicking – the author names could be made consistent. Have spent some time on this - are we there yet? Plantsurfer 18:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Images

• The article could have more images. A clear image of the tree would be great alongside Description. Use others if you can, especially in Ecology.

There is a dearth of good images on WMC. Don't know how to procure more. We could use some good images of the flowers and medium distance shots of foliage, an illustration of A. pseudoplatanus "Brilliantissimum" and some of the mites and galls referred to in the article. Also an illustration of the tree in an amenity tree context, especially in some notable location outside native range, such as Central Park in NY. Plantsurfer 18:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure you know what should be best for the article. The images I can see right now look reasonably fine to me, but you can take your time searching for better ones. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

That should be it. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on this review. I see that Plantsurfer, who has been working on this article with me, has responded to many of your points. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the edits look good. I'll check them and update my comments. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 08:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sainsf Thank you for your very thorough and constructive review. As Cwmhiraeth stated, I have tried to deal with many of your points, but the checking of references may take a little longer. Plantsurfer 11:01, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, take your time. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 11:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I think I have dealt with your referencing points, but may have missed some. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I have updated my comments, please check them. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 17:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

How are we doing? With two people making alterations, it is difficult to know whether everything has been covered. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It should be clearer now. Sorry it took long, I was away. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Remaining issues

@Cwmhiraeth:

• Page numbers referred to in cited books are still to do, but this may be a long job! done I think, but another set of eyes wouldn't hurt. Plantsurfer 18:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
• Reference 28 redirects to Google books, and does not enable satisfactory access to the cited material. An alternative should be found. Any suggestions? done Plantsurfer 18:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sainsf: I think we have now dealt with most of the substantive issues you raised, and hope you agree. Could you let us know if you think there are any further problems that remain an obstacle to GA status. Many thanks. Plantsurfer 15:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

This is such an excellent work that it can be promoted :) But as I have raised these few points in the review, it may be amiss if we did not have them dealt with. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 15:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Awesome! The citation issues resolved, I don't think we need to wait anymore. I am glad to promote this. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 06:56, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Sainsf. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this. Plantsurfer 10:14, 21 May 2016 (UTC)