Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia petiolaris/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2018 [1].

Banksia petiolaris

edit
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah yeah I know, another banksia (like the other 31 FAs). Still, as a body of work I wanted to get them all featured. Anyway, short and sweet. It's comprehensive (I scoured the sources) and should read ok. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley. It does indeed read ok. I'm no botanist, but I enjoyed and (I'm fairly sure) understood the article. Seems to this layman to be comprehensive, and is well and widely sourced. (I foresee a quibble about ISBN formatting from the source reviewer, but for my own part I don't much care whether ISBNs are hyphenated or in 10- or 13-digit form.) Very happy to support. Tim riley talk 19:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

edit
  • Page range formats should be consistent throughout. Compare refs 2, 3 et al with refs 6, 9 et al
err, they are. They are more than two digits when they have 'clocked' the hundred mark... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I didn't look closely enough. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 11 link is returning me a 404 error message
hmm, the doi is linking to the abstract ok for me.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant 10 not 11, and I'm still getting 404 on that. Brianboulton (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 14: There's a hyphen in the page range that ought to be a ndash.
weird. the automated tool wouldn't fix that one. fixed now manually anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These are the only issues. Otherwise sources meet all FAC criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon

edit

A fine article, short and sweet. I am neither a biologist nor a native speaker, so just a few comments:

  • Those of this species ... the longest-lived leaves of --> just a suggestion: The leaves of this species .. the longest-lived of
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15 degrees off vertical.[1] --> first 8 sentences all are sourced from [1], so it feels random to have this [1] here.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • linking is inconsistent: von Mueller is linked in lead and body, as I expected, but prostrate shrub only in lead. Flowering plant is linked on second occurrence in lead. Those are just examples.
checked a few links and changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • characters --> just checking, I'm a lay-person, is that really characters or perhaps characteristics?
latter more accessible to lay-readers so changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • as well as rockeries --> seems a bit lost.
massaged this section a bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Banksia petiolaris in bud, cult. Sydney --> does this mean in bud, cultivated in Sydney?
yes/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 08:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edwininlondon (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk

edit
  • I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 10:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You describe what is shown in each photo in the article body, but could this be done for the taxobox photo as well? On Commons, it says " inflorescence, cult", which would be helpful.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No common names?
nope. doesn't appear to have any Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "B. subg. Banksia", " B. sect. Banksia", "Banksia ser. Prostratae". Perhaps subgenus, section, etc, should be spelled out, I image most readers may not know what these abbreviations mean.
unabbreviated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The genus Banksia L.f. (Proteaceae)" Since the title is in italics, I think the genus name should not be? See for example the reference in the article about that work.
tried to format but didn't work. As teh name of he monograph is the just the genus (and hence pretty unimaginative), I have tweaked it to link instead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the vicinity of Esperance" Only stated in intro.
aligned with body of text Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from JM

edit

Co-ordinators: I reviewed this article at GAC.

  • ""Banksia petiolaris F.Muell". Australian Plant Name Index (APNI), IBIS database. Centre for Plant Biodiversity Research, Australian Government." I find the italics a little odd, here, and is there a reason you haven't included an accessdate?
it is an old template. accessdate added manually. which talics? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mueller, Ferdinand J. H. von (1864). "Banksia petiolaris". Fragmenta Phytographiae Australiae. 4 (27): 109. Archived from the original on 2018-03-19." Should the binomial not be italicsed? It seems to be in the source.
italicised now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're inconsistent on the capitalisation of article titles; notes 9, 10, 11, 12 and 16 are sentence case, 1, 7, 13, 15 and 17 are title case.
lowercased now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
linked now. I cited the other as a journal as the format of volumes and issues seemed to be appropriate Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Elliot, Rodger W.; Jones, David L.; Blake, Trevor (1985). Encyclopaedia of Australian Plants Suitable for Cultivation: Vol. 2. Port Melbourne: Lothian Press. p. 299. ISBN 0-85091-143-5." Would it not be more usual to cite the particular entry in the encyclopedia, rather than the encyclopedia as a whole?
hadn't given it much thought. entry added. lowercased now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Sweedman, Luke; Merritt, David (2006). Australian seeds: a guide to their collection, identification and biology. CSIRO Publishing. p. 203. ISBN 0-643-09298-6." Surprising capitalisation; no location.
uppercased now. location added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mast, Austin R.; Givnish, Thomas J. (2002). "Historical biogeography and the origin of stomatal distributions in Banksia and Dryandra (Proteaceae) based on Their cpDNA phylogeny". American Journal of Botany. 89 (8): 1311–23. doi:10.3732/ajb.89.8.1311. ISSN 0002-9122. PMID 21665734. Archived from the original on 2006-06-12. Retrieved 2006-07-02." Retrieval dates aren't necessary for journal publications.
removed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's about as picky as I can manage. All sources are appropriately scholarly. I have no opinion right now on comprehensiveness. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Banksia_petiolaris/archive1&oldid=1136098738"