Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lambertia formosa/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.

This article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Lambertia formosa

edit

Lambertia formosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC) + Melburnian (talk · contribs)[reply]

We're nominating this for featured article because it's just come together really well. Neat and concise with just about everything possible to find on it.....and is the equal of other plant Featured Articles. Have at it. cheers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Is a wikicup nomination yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Cassianto

This looks like another promising article co-nom'd by the master of flowers and fungus ;) A few points at first glance...

*Do we need to link Australia?

good point - unlinked Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*" Unlike all other members of the genus Lambertia, L. formosa is resistant to dieback (Phytophthora cinnamomi)." -- Could we not pipe a link to Phytophthora cinnamomi, rather than mentioning that and dieback?

used a brief descriptor instead Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*I'm wanting to say " Flowers are seen at any time of the year".

I am just as happy as without the "the" but am not fussed so added Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"Endemic to New South Wales, Lambertia formosa is found in on or east of the..." -- in on or east is missing some punctuation I think?

removed one preposition Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*" The numbers of flowers..." -- Should there be a double plural here?

no desperate need...singularised Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*" in Hammersmith in west London." -- repetition of "in". Suggest replacing the latter with a comma.

good point - done Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"Andrews wrote in 1799 that it..." -- In 1788, in 1798, in 1799; the list of years sounds a little repetitive. Might I suggest "The following year, Andrews wrote..."

good point - done Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"home garden" sounds odd. Suggest "domestic garden"?

hmm, "domestic garden" sounds weird to me. Just changed to "in cultivation"... Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*On a side note and purely for aesthetic reasons, could the refs be split into two columns? Not essential, just a thought.

yeah I think I like the two columns better Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thx Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't see anything here that would encourage me to oppose, although I do see a couple small potential tweaks. The Benson source uses full page numbers for the range, although other places you shorten to two digits where possible. Formatting on the Andrews reference looks funny. Maybe use "at=pl. LXIX" to get rid of that extraneous "pp."? Likewise, is "the author" preferred for the publisher credit in circumstances like this, as opposed to repeating his name? I'm not sure what MOS best practice is in that regard. Should Lambertia formosa be italicized in the title of the Pyke source (and/or the Walters one)? The Carr reference includes the specific publication date while all the other sources are cited solely to year. And finally, while it's doesn't in any way count against the FA criteria, it would be awesome if an image of one of those "mountain devil" souvenir figures was available. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
got the two digits (mistake on my part that one) and the "at" parameter - just racing out the door - will see 'bout others anon. agree about the image Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found one image on Flickr, but unfortunately not licensed such that we could use it. It might be worth trying to contact the uploader and seeing if they'd be willing to switch it to an open license. Those things are adorable in a hopelessly kitschy way! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have italicised the Pyke and Walters references. The Carr reference requires a full date as the Australian Women's Weekly was, as that time, published each week.--Melburnian (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That pretty much blows out all the referencing tweaks I had. I'm still not sure what our MOS says about works where the author and the publisher are the same. We've got "The author" here, APA says "Author" with no article, and I've also seen the author name simply repeated (including, I want to say, in some FA here). Also, I'm not sure whether "plate" should be abbreviated to "pl." or not. But I'll leave the MOS minutiae to folks who have dealt with obscure style points more often. For my part, I'm happy to have helped with some of the other reference formatting and to support this for promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask about the image too (cool image/nice find BTW) and might keep an eye out at arts and crafts shops in the Blue Mountains as looks like we might be going up for a family gathering this weekend (failing this I might try and make some myself......) - thx for the support Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To my experience, editing it to |publisher=self-published or |publisher=(self-published) is appropriate for authors who publish their own work. I forget where an appropriate part for this is in the MOS. ——--macropneuma 04:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from macropneuma: Regarding the lead paragraphs, some suggestions about nuances when reading it; (my two cents; these nuances are not so important; i don’t expect you to agreed/disagree/care about such nuances)
  • "…is a shrub of the family Proteaceae, endemic to New South Wales, Australia."
—one extra comma.
done.--Melburnian (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Generally found on in heathland or open forest, …"
—inside the ecosystem (interactions, relationships, etc.), materially inside the soil and inside the heathlands’ and forests’ air filled as it is with biological–chemical–signals.
—for the underlying reasons for grammar change.
  • "It has narrow stiff stiff narrow leaves, …"
—on only my feeling of a subtle inconsequential nuance.
done.--Melburnian (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the pink or red pink–red flowerheads …"
—an alternative to perhaps use if pink to red is the intended meaning, as is my field experience of the flower colours, or perhaps simply, literally "pink to red".
done as "pink to red" (i.e. a gradation rather than a dichotomy).--Melburnian (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "flowerheads, made up of seven individual tubular flowers, generally appear in spring and summer."
—two extra commas.
done.--Melburnian (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although L. formosa is uncommon in cultivation, it is straightforward to grow in soils with good drainage and a, at least a partly at least partly, sunny aspect."
—of course, the latter is a question about grammar? I'm not 100% sure on that one.
thought I'd try "... a partly shaded to sunny aspect"--Melburnian (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, i agree. That’s a good alternative wording. Consider that done, in terms of my suggestion on that point. ——--macropneuma 08:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In due course, of course (Amusing myself with accidental wordiness, after my pedantic efforts, haha), I am going to give my two cents worth of support. ——--macropneuma 05:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you--Melburnian (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick! ——--macropneuma 07:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " it grows on growing in sandstone-based soils."
—Just now i had the temerity to put this edit out on trial for you all (see the article itself). What do you all think? If you don’t like it, then, of course, please feel free to undo it. ——--macropneuma 04:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's two parts to this. The sentence requires a subject so "it" (or a substitute) really needs to be there. Regarding "on soils" or "in soils", I have a preference for "on soils" in this particular context though I have seen both versions used in the literature.--Melburnian (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeh of course, the subject!; alternatively: "Generally it’s found in heathland or open forest, growing in sandstone-based soils."
I say (most) plants grow on substrates / parent materials, and in soils, (of course some of the exceptions are floating aquatics, lithophytes and epiphytes). Cheers! ——--macropneuma 05:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're alternative looks good to me, though I would use "it is" instead of the "it's" for a more formal tone.--Melburnian (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh "it is"! Of course, i don’t mind much and i want you two to be happy, with your choices—of all the work you have done on this article. Again, feel free to undo: "in … soils". A dialogue opening comment/question, much broader than this topic and to take away elsewhere: Do any of you here learn the middle ground (i suspect you might too) between E Prime and 'the standard, abstraction–from–reality, language of commercialism …'–ref. I'm in that middle ground and never cease learning more … reality …, particularly in this instance about living plants. Ultimately it depends not on the grammar—just a part of the conveyance—rather it depends on what you two intend in meaning, and not what i intend in meaning, as i’m not writing the article, in the past or present. ——--macropneuma 06:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of you here learn the middle ground between E Prime and 'the standard abstraction–from–reality language of commercialism …' The answer for myself is no, looks like I have a bit of reading to do. --Melburnian (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I've had limited access and look what happens...discussion gets very tangential Lambertia --> E-Prime...wow. but back to the article, I'd say "It is generally found..." but otherwise fine - I've read "in soils" and "on soils"....and think I've written both previously so am happy with either and can't figure which I'd prefer...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe Casliber, yes, dialogue to take away elsewhere. Thanks Melburnian; and small text for such comments as mine is good form as i’ve edited above, thanks. The subject is a big broad one, including quantum physics. Needless to say, i’ve got a bit (more) of reading to do too—'it is huge'!—a huge subject. ——--macropneuma 08:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The flowers hold profuse nectar' ' — reads oddly, surely should indicate profuse amounts/quantity somehow
Done.--Melburnian (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bracts cover the bases of the flowers, greenish and reddish. — strange word order
I changed it to "Their bases are covered by greenish and reddish bracts."--Melburnian (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • though tolerates a range of soils and some shade — "it"?
aaaargh, there I go again.... tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Banks' Florilegium — italics?
Done.--Melburnian (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Funny, it seems to work for me ..? [[2]] is in the description section Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That map is sourced to the one I mentioned, which is itself sourced to this, which resolves as "Redirection page: The page you are looking for cannot be found". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah right. I didnt' go that far...time for some archive link then. I'm lousy at formatting them....Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided a link to an archived version of the source page and also to the current version of that page.--Melburnian (talk) 00:10, 17 March 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/Lambertia_formosa/archive1&oldid=1079645358"