Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia speciosa/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Banksia speciosa

edit
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 User:Ian Rose 10:15, 31 July 2013 [1].

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is the equal of the other banksia Featured Articles. Sasata gave it a thorough going-over for GA status. All input appreciated. have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-old, own work). Sources and authors provided.

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN5: series generally isn't italicized
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, how'd I miss that....rejigged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, how'd I miss that....rejigged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim just a few quibbles before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As they age they develop up to 20 follicles... It
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rusty-coloured— rust-coloured
hmmm, the latter makes it sound to me too much like a plant pathogen....maybe a UK/Aus thing? will double check on that one..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • one or two year-old stems— one- or two-year-old I think (see later in your text)
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oval shaped = oval
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • each follicle is 3.5–5 cm... They
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cacciola ref has its title in a different style to the journal refs
I think that is because it has a taxon in italics to start the title...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was making with the ref was that it didn't have the same heavy capitalisation as the others. Anyway, I'll leave that with you, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah, I missed that. fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportPumpkinSky talk 02:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Looks good as usual. Some small comments from a first read below. Choess (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the seed" in the lead feels a bit odd to me (using the definite article without having said which seed is being referred to. Maybe "its seed"?
I see it as a group noun - its seed sounds weird to me, so maybe just "seeds" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of "lined" in "Description". The word makes me think of the interior of a cavity, something three-dimensional. Could we use "edged"? "bordered"? "rimmed"?
I think "lines" but no matter - "bordered" is fine too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Description", could we put a paragraph break between the material on the leaves (ends with "hair when mature") and that on the flowers, or would that make the initial paragraph too short? It seems odd to me to have that transition in the middle of a paragraph.
para split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "southern sandplains" refer to a well-defined geographical area? If not, perhaps sandplain should be linked.
I've linked sandplain - will double check on the specificity of this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC) It lies partly within Esperance Plains, but not all of that is sandplain. The term is uncapitalised more often than not on google search, and we don't have a target article so I think sandplain is the easiest link really. Esperance Plains is linked elsewhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the other is dark brown, on this side the body..." is awkward. Use a semicolon or a period after "dark brown".
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Taxonomy", the common names "handsome banksia" and "ricrac banksia" are mentioned but do not appear in bold in the lead. Should they be added there, and in this section, should they be set off from the running text in quotes?
those names are seldom used, hence I didn't feel they merited mentioning in the lead - "showy banksia" is pretty universal these days. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Ecology, "opened by fire" seems preferable to "opened with fire".
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "progressively store larger numbers" should be "store progressively larger numbers" (i.e., it's the largeness of the numbers that's progressive, rather than the storage)
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though this suggested it might outcompete its conspecifics": I'd say "Though these results suggested B. speciosa might outcompete its conspecifics". I find decoding the pronouns just a little disorienting.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good looking at it initially, I'll give it a read this evening.Tibetan Prayer ᧾ 10:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by the Dr.

Lead -

  • I'd place "Banksia speciosa occurs on the south coast of Western Australia between Hopetoun (33°57′ S) and the Great Australian Bight (approximately 33° S 130° E), growing on white or grey sand in shrubland. " in the second sentence before the description to immediately picture where it grows.
switched up. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nectar- and insect-feeding birds" Not sure why there is a hyphen after nectar and then a space.
as the hyphen presupposes a "feeding" - it's the way I have always thought about it.....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a "sunny aspect"? Soils which receive much sunlight you mean? I vaguely remember the term in A level geography or biology like a slope which faces the sun or something but it was a long time ago! Could you clarify for the scientifically ignorant?
aaah, I forget to take off my gardening hat - in essence "sunny location" - changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Description -

  • "The seed is 3.7–4.5 cm (1.5–1.8 in) long and fairly flattened, and is composed of the seed body proper, measuring 1–1.4 cm (0.4–0.6 in) long and 0.9–1.2 cm (0.4–0.5 in) wide, and a papery wing." can you cite this given that it has a number of figures?
Good point - what I prefer to do is this so as I don't clutter the prose up with more inlines than is needed, and anyone editing can see how much text is covered by the cite. That ok? I usually do this more often but get lazy sometimes..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is an "upright habit". Prone to growing straight and erect?
yup. The first instance is linked to Habit (biology)...which could do with some improvement certainly.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy -

  • "The first botanical collection of this species may well have been Claude Riche, naturalist to Bruni d'Entrecasteaux's 1791 expedition in search of the lost ships of Jean-François de Galaup, comte de La Pérouse." Not too keen on the "may well have been" and no citation, looks a little OR. I know the third sentence is sourced, but can you also source the first?
Like above, I have added a commented out note detailing the coverage of the source. The way it is written is (I think) engaging. My first attempt at getting rid of the fluffy verbage "may well have been" makes it sound a bit wooden - I will sleep on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure you have a standard layout or project guideline for articles like this but as a reader naturally I'd want to know about distribution, cultivation, ecology after description and Taxonomy last. I suppose you wouldn't accept moving down the Taxonomy to the bottom? It seems to look more natural to me but I'm not the expert on these sorts of articles like you!
the order of sections has been debated on multiple occasions. In all cases, Taxonomy and/or naming and/or systematics and Description are the first two, though their order may change depending on local consensus - these two define the subject - done by diagnosis and one by its attributes, and hence these are why they are up top. i.e. you have to know what a thing is before discussing its range, ecology etc.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links

  • Can you put the wikisource links inline on the left? I think the three boxes bloats it at the end.
have you seen any special formatting for them or examples? I'd prefer them not being just external links but something internal/official looking. Even if we could make the boxes align horizontally....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks very good, I think it would look even better with a slight shuffling of the paragraphs. Tibetan Prayer ᧾ 21:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

have you seen any special formatting for them or examples? I'd prefer them not being just external links but something internal/official looking. Even if we could make the boxes align horizontally....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for addressing my points. Like Jim I think this is sound enough on such a subject to be worthy of an FA.Tibetan Prayer ᧾ 17:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thx for the vote of confidence :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Hamiltonstone

  • "It does not have a lignotuber." Well thanks, I won't go looking then. Seriously, it seems strange to be told of something the plant does not have. Is there a reason, and if so, might that be worth including? Such as "Unlike most Banksia species, it does not have a lignotuber."

Looks excellent otherwise. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

good point - context added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Cas, did you run the duplink checker? Definitely a couple not needed... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

got 'em now....was busy and forgot I think.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 31 July 2013 (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_speciosa/archive1&oldid=1089817835"