Talk:Banksia oligantha

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Banksia oligantha/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ucucha 13:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

No doubt it'll be good as usual. Two things to start:

• I presume there are no pictures available?
• The two citation needed tags need to be resolved.

Ucucha 13:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Pictures are very tricky. It's very rare and seldom in cultivation. A non wiki friend has photorgaphed it and might give permission. I am intending to ask in the next day or two, and yes we are getting to the cite tags in the next 24-48 hours. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope you'll be able to get some. Ucucha 22:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded the two images, but I need to get permission sorted out first. I have emailed the author/copyright holder and am crossing my fingers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Add the subgenus to the infobox?

I have mused on that, but the most recent research throws a cladistic spanner in the works. Up until now, isostylis was a straightforward and distinctive subgenus, but now it appears heavily nested within banksia, so might be relegated to some form of subseries or something once the classification is rewritten (i.e. someone clamps some linnaean-style groupings over the newly sorted cladogram...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• The Declared Rare Flora sentence may need to be rephrased; it looks odd now. ("It has been listed as "Declared Rare Flora ..."?)

yep. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Do we know the karyotype?

Not in anything I have seen. Hesp? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

All banksias are n=14, as far as we know. Hesperian 03:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• You have "arrangement" four times in short succession.

rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• What are the genetic and phenetic characters of that unusual B. cuneata population?

Unfortunately there is no information in the paper about that. The only extra information is that it is the southernmost population and closest geographically to oligantha. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Added another citation needed tag. In that paragraph, the "it is said" piece probably needs explicit attribution.

Ucucha 22:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Should I do a literature check? Ucucha 12:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be great. Thanks for the offer. I doubt much else will come up but it's a slim article...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

We've somehow omitted to cite "Plant mating systems and assessing population persistence in fragmented landscapes". I'll rectify that over the weekend. Hesperian 03:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's one of two I got in Web of Science that are not cited yet. The other is doi:10.1071/BT06183, which mentions B. oligantha only in passing. In JSTOR, there is JSTOR 2845847, which mentions that B. oligantha has deciduous florets, but may be more interesting for other Banksia articles. A few other pieces in JSTOR mention it only in passing. You might want to have a look through the Google Scholar results, though most also seem to mention it only in passing. Ucucha 18:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have used the biogeography paper on several other species articles but somehow neglected to review it for discussion relevant to this species. I'll try to remember to tackle these tonight. Hesperian 00:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing here should have much bearing on GA status, so I am passing it as a GA now. If you get the images sorted and the mating systems source included, I don't think it should have a problem at FAC. Ucucha 18:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)