Talk:Fontainea venosa

I took a look as requested on my talk page

I took a look as requested on my talk page. Between then and now someone else took a look, and it was already a nice article before then. The tag notes that it has links to disambig pages. If that's the case, that should be fixed. Ether way ending up with the tag removed. Most of what I'd add is from the standpoint of reader empathy, an area where I'm particularly tough and so feel free to use or ignore anything that I say. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I found the following to be confusing and possibly self conflicting: "Studies regarding genetic variability within Fontainea species through RAPD analysis had shown that Fontainea venosa represents the most divergent taxonomic unit and was the only clearly distinct species. The Multigene CYP450 in Fontainea Venosa’ is also distinct from other Fontainea species. A part of the confusing (and I read it a few times to figure it out) is that the plural for species is the same as the singular. But the first part essentially says that there are several species within that group and the latter part sort of say that there is only one. You might want to add a few words to clarify. Also while the body in essence said "most distinct species" the lead says "the only distinct species"

My own opinion is that external links should be for people who want more info and that the reader should not have to read the linked article in order to understand the basic statement of the sentence. There are a few instances where this article has that issue. You could fix those by just adding a noun to the sentence when making the external link. For example, if xyz124 is a regulation, instead of writing "According to xyz1234 you are required to" write "According to the xyz1234 regulation you are required to". For example, you did this with Cytochrome P450,

This is taken to an even more confusing degree with EBC-46; you linked to an article that is not only not EBC-46, it does not even explain or use the term EBC-46.

I was guessing that you might prefer that I describe these and my thoughts here rather than just editing the article.

Overall, nice work! North8000 (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I need to get some sleep. Species names need italicising - all have lower case as start of specific epithet (i.e. the venosa word or equivalent) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@North8000: Thank you so much for your feedback North8000. I had deleted some of the links that lead to disambiguation pages and it seems that it now has been fixed. I will also take all of your following suggestions into account and make the necessary adjustments later. :) Once again, thank you! 02:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thank you for reviewing and pointing that out! I have just checked all the species names again and all of them are now in italic. Thank you for bringing this up Cas! Sparklingkull (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay @Sparklingkull:...I have to ask.....what is "an adequately small tree"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Casliber: Hi Cas! Thanks asking. I understand that the phrase "an adequately small tree" might not be necessary and can be misleading. Thus, I have now reworded the sentence. Let me know if you think further editing needs to be done. Thank you! Sparklingkull (talk) 05:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks better now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for input

Hi @Sparklingkull Dracophyllum, (formerly Beeveria) here, this article has lots of good sources and info but there are some minor things I would suggest. First, it seems you are missing a critical piece of information regarding Fontainea venosa, which is what kind of plant is it? A tree, a vine, a shrub etc. This should be front in centre in both the lead and the description. Second, your sectioning seems a little off. I would move "Genetic insights in relation to closely related species" into taxonomy, the "Growth pattern and reproduction" section into Description, the "Protective management measures" under a "Conservation and threats" section - though wouldn't mind input from others on this. Other than that I would suggest using fewer paragraphs as it looks off and remembering that you can shorten Fontainea venosa to F. venosa. Excellent for your first article though!

Dracophyllum 05:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dracophyllum Thank you so much for your feedback! I really appreciate it. I have made the necessary changes in accordance to your feedback. I am just wondering how we can get the article reassessed for its current rank (stub, start, B class etc)? I have put my article up in WikiPlants project in the list of article for peer-reviewed help, but unsure how I can get it reassessed and hopefully improve the rank of the article.

Thank you so much for your help and sorry to bother you! Sparklingkull (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

For assessments below Good article there typically isn't a formal process of reassessment. I would recommend having a look at the Quality Scale on WikiProject Plants and deciding for yourself. For now I'll be conservative and rate this as C class - though I may rate higher on closer inspection. Dracophyllum 09:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

To get to B class try making the genetic stuff a little easier to understand for the average person and proof read the article again. :) Dracophyllum 09:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dracophyllum Thank you again! Yes I have tried to fix up some things and an editor has rated it as B-class for now :). Thank you so much for your feedback and input! They really help and I really appreciate them. Sparklingkull (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Dracophyllum and @Sparklingkull,

Just be clear, I used a tool called Rater to assess the article as "B". Any logged-in editor can use it! Gderrin (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@GderrinHi Gdderin! Yes, thank you for your help assessing it and and for the clarification as well. Hope all is well. Sparklingkull (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

[[File:|140px|Fontainea Venosa fruit and leaves, Queensland, Australia ]]

Fontainea Venosa fruit and leaves, Queensland, Australia

Date of expansion: 17 May 2021

• ... that Fontainea venosa (pictured) is a vulnerable rare plant in Australia?
  • ALT1:... that Fontainea venosa (pictured) has fruits similar to oranges?

5x expanded by Sparklingkull (talk). Self-nominated at 01:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC).

• Article is long enough (5x expanded)
• Article is new enough
• Article is neutral
• Well referenced with appropriate citations
• No copyvio on Earwig
• Hook is interesting, short enough and supported by inline citation from a sound source

Good to go. Gderrin (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Requested peer review

Hi Sparklingkull, I have gone through the article as you requested and as I said it is amazing, didn't realize it is your first such work :) Other editors have already given much valuable feedback, I will just add a few of my thoughts based on how the article looks at the moment. The genetic stuff definitely needs simplification, as do terms like "elliptic to oblanceolate" (can be tough but try to add a few words or links to help one visualize). You need to use convert templates throughout consistently. Sourcing and referencing looks decent, though the very last line of the article lacks an inline citation. I would say you can try nominating this for GAN in fact after addressing all the comments here and comparing with existing plant GAs to check anything you might want to improve on. Good luck! Sainsf (t · c) 08:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sainsf. Thank you for reviewing the article and for your feedback! I will apply your feedback after this and might nominate it for GA. Hope you are staying safe during these times! Sparklingkull (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eewilson (talk · contribs) 05:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @Sparklingkull: Thank you for improving Fontainea venosa and submitting it as a GA nominee. This will be my 4th GA review. I have one article that I brought to GA status, Symphyotrichum lateriflorum. I will do my best to review F. venosa in a timely manner, but I have been told that I am very thorough. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. —Eewilson (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Eewilson: Hi! Thank you for your review :) I had just edited the article as per your suggestions. I also found some minor grammar error things that I had just revised as well. Hopefully, it is better now.

Also, I think the use of commas to justify or further explain something mid-sentence should be fine. Refer to the discussion in this link that might help explaining it https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/2649/how-to-explain-something-mid-sentence

However, if you think a change is necessary, I can also change it as well. Let me know

Thanks!

Sparklingkull (talk) 11:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, @Sparklingkull: Which commas do you mean (with that link)? Just to make sure I understand what you are talking about so I can see if a change is necessary. —Eewilson (talk) 12:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Eewilson & Sparklingkull, what is the status of this review? --Usernameunique (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Usernameunique, I haven't heard from Sparklingkull since 26 June 2021. I believe that was the day COVID-19 hit badly again in Sydney, Australia, where they live. I believe they are a student, and possibly (just guessing) does not have access to facilities to work on this. Just guessing. It needs work and has an image that I actually was getting ready to nominate for deletion for copyvio (or potentially so). If we don't hear from Spaklingkull, it could probably be failed. I'd say wait it out a day after your ping. —Eewilson (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Grammar and punctuation

@Sparklingkull: Hi! I am finding what I would consider a significant number of punctuation and grammatical errors which are not acceptable for an article at B-status :(, so they will definitely all need to be fixed before we can go further toward GA. Editors come at articles with all levels of an understanding of the English language, and English is complicated, so please don't be discouraged about this. You don't have to be an expert, but they will need to be fixed. Please know that I am coming at this from US English, so if I do get something incorrect per Australian English, please let me know, although I think the ones I am bring up are universal. :) So, let me see if I can help with this first.

Here are some examples:

• Grammar — nouns and verbs
  • Each leaf have a base with a pair... — the correct verb is Each leaf has a base with a pair...
  • Its leaf stalk or petiole range from... — the correct verb is Its leaf stalk or petiole ranges from...
  • Female flowers are apical and often occurs in... — the correct verb is Female flowers are apical and often occur in...
  • Its fruit have an orange to yellow colour and are spherical... — in this case, I would pluralize the noun to make it Its fruits have an orange to yellow colour and are spherical...
  • Forest and thicket should be plural in this sentence: F. venosa occurs mainly in Notophyll vine forest or Araucaria microphyll vine forest and vine thicket, up to 380 meters in altitude that captures moderate orographic rainfall.
  • Going along these lines, take a good read again of the article and look for verb/noun plurality mismatches and correct accordingly.

• Punctuation, comma use, run-on sentences
  • You don't need the comma after "of which": Direct sequencing of selected cpDNA and nrDNA within the genus affirmed four distinct sequence groups, of which, the third...
  • Run-on sentence. A run-on sentence is one that is either too long, has too little punctuation, or both. Here is one: The study evinced that F. venosa was the sole clearly distinct species within the genus as F. australis was identical to F. rostrata and it was not possible to differentiate F. oraria and F. australis. In this sentence, you should put a comma after "clearly distinct species within the genus" and before the "as". After "F. rostrata," you could start a new sentence, removing the word "and," or put a comma before the "and." This will fix the run-on sentence.
  • In this sentence, I think there is a misplaced comma, but I'm not exactly sure where it should be. Could you read again and clarify, and fix if necessary? A study which examined the presence of Cytochrome P450s (CYP450s), vital enzymes for biosynthesis of physiologically essential compounds involved in the catalysis reactions of plant growth and development via metabolome analysis, showed that Fontainea species have a unique chemical profile compared to other plant species.
  • Here, if the "natural product" included both EBC-46 and tigilanol tiglate, since there are only two, you don't need the comma before the or: ...natural product, including epoxytigliane diterpenes (EBC-46), or tigilanol tiglate.
  • Commas and periods should almost always be inside of quotation marks: ...diterpene esters of epoxy-tigliane class", should be corrected, as well as others I have seen in the article.
  • Use an m-dash here after the word vulnerable and with a space before and after it: ...F. venosa is considered to be "vulnerable"- populations are threatened and declining...
  • Take a good read of the article again and look for misapplied punctuation and run-on sentences.

• A few other things I noticed right now:
  • Should Dawes National Park State just be Dawes National Park?
  • Redundancy: F. venosa was also previously recorded in Barakula State Forest in 1934... In this situation, you don't need to use the word previously because it's obvious that 1934 was previous to now.
  • Is SF 124 another term for Barakula State Forest? It's not clear.

Don't hesitate to seek out some people who have articles in the English Wikipedia that they have gotten to GA and ask them to help you with grammar and punctuation if you need it. These are my first comments from first read. I'd like to see that you've read these, comment on here that you have done so, ask questions if you have them, make changes, then comment on here when your changes are complete. Thanks! :) —Eewilson (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Images

@Sparklingkull: Hi! I hope all is well with you. I see that there is shutdown in Sydney because of the Delta variant. Stay safe.

I have two questions about your image Fontainea_venosa.jpg. First, I found the exact image online at https://apps.des.qld.gov.au/species-search/details/?id=11304#. Did you obtain it from there? Second, the caption says "Fontainea venosa fruit and leaves, Queensland." I see fruits fallen to or lying on the ground (which is fine), but I don't see leaves of F. venosa, so maybe a more appropriate caption here. Otherwise, images are fine at this time. —Eewilson (talk) 05:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to add that you need to put alternative text for all of the images. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images, and its parent page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility for accessibility information with respect to Wikipedia in general. —Eewilson (talk) 05:03, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Failing

@Sparklingkull: Failing this. Have not heard from you for over 5 weeks. There are outstanding issues. Too technical (WP:TECHNICAL). One non-free image. It is not ready for GA at this time. Hope all is well where you are. —Eewilson (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Summary

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·