Talk:Alloxylon pinnatum/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• I think the lead could probably have a few more internal links

Added some - any others you can see? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

How about Queensland and New South Wales? Your call. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Why the italics for "near threatened"? Quote marks I could understand? I wonder whether the conservation info would be a neater fit at the end of the lead; perhaps even in the same sentence as the cultivation info.

Looking at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Italic_type, I have used italics for emphasis vis. words as words section....if you really think better unitalicised I can unformat... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure- I'll defer to you. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

ok I'll leave it then. Quote marks would look wrong to my eyes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• "The Dorrigo waratah is a rainforest tree which reaches 25 m (82 ft) high and a non-buttressed trunk of 1.5 m (5 ft) diameter at breast height (dbh)" Missing word or two? Also, is "non-buttressed" jargon?

"has" added. Buttress roots are a really common feature of rainforest trees, so noting whther or not a plant has them is important Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• "at first entire, with later leaves becoming pinnate" Jargony (you link pinnate a line later!) "compound" and "lanceolate", too. Compound?

tried to dejargonise with a bit of extra info, more needed? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

By "with deep 'pinnae' or lobes", do you mean something like "with deep pinnae (lobes)" or perhaps something like "with either pinnae [link/explantion needed] or lobes"? Pinnae is surely jargon. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

the former.....tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)`

• "which arise in pairs off main stalk within the inflorescence" Something not right, here.

"the" added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• "With the recognition of the distinctness of the Australian members of the genus Oreocallis and their reallocation to the new genus Alloxylon, it was given its current binomial name of Alloxylon pinnatum in 1991 by Peter Weston and Mike Crisp of the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney." You've got two adverbial clauses (I think). That's a little jarring. How about "The distinctness of the Australian members of the genus Oreocallis was recognised [whenever], and they were reallocation to the new genus Alloxylon. The Dorrigo waratah was then given its current binomial name of Alloxylon pinnatum in 1991 by Peter Weston and Mike Crisp of the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney."

rejigged. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• You mention the origin of the species name twice

extra removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• What's a "terminal" flower? "radiation"?

explained and/or linked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Is Triporopollenites ambiguus worth linking?

yes/linked. Will do a stub soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• "Along with members of other genera in the Embothriinae, A. pinnatum has crimson pollen, while the other three Alloxylon species have yellow pollen" Is this there because it raises a question about the cladistics?

Yes - it is a fascinating fact. It has the same colour as other genera...but not members in its own genus, which indicates that it is the earliest offshoot...and the other lineage switched pollen colour and then diversified into the other three species...do you think it needs to be made more explicit? I spelt it out, but is it too much detail? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Not at all- you're right that it's an interesting detail. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• "where it was noted to demand very good drainage as well as shelter, and be somewhat exacting in its requirements" I don't really know what this means

It has rather precise growing requirements. Good drainage, and some shelter. I rejigged it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see- much clearer. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I shouldn't be quibbling about reference formatting for GAC, but...

• You don't need retrieval dates for courtesy links to hardcopy books/articles

aaah old cut and paste refs. removed accessdates now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Footnote 17 seems to be formatted completely differently to the others, and 18/20 could be better. Do you need a location for footnote 19?

aaah that was an old template for 17. changed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources all seem appropriate and the images are fine (of course!). Key questions are answered. My one worry is that the article is a bit bogged down in technical language. Once you fix the above, I'd be happy to promote to GA status, but an independent copyeditor (and another thorough literature search) might be a good idea before FAC, if you're looking in that direction. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, fantastic. I'm happy with the changes made- I've promoted the article. Great work, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

thanks ....yeah am aware this one is a bit on the slim side and have been surprised how little has been written. Will do a bit of a scour Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)