Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lilioid families/archive1

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of lilioid families

edit

List of lilioid families (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 05:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I'll wait and see what people want to talk about before I come back and discuss that in this intro. I hope you enjoy the list. - Dank (push to talk) 05:36, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited these lists to make the etymology (the origins and meanings of the words) more prominent, and in general to try to answer questions such as: Have I seen these plants before? Where? What do they look like? After I'm finished with this list series, I'll collaborate on a list of flowering plant tribes rather than families (and some families include many tribes). That will allow more accurate descriptions of flowers, foliage, etc. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC) (Note: per a discussion at WT:PLANTS, it looks like I'll be removing "etymologies" from the page title, but everything above still applies.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Umimmak

edit

@Dank: Quick comments, I'll do more thorough ones later:

  • is there a reason you don't have author citations for any of the families? ICNafp and MOS:ORGANISM recommends their inclusion for first mention of taxa in these sorts of lists. (see, e.g., List of ant subfamilies, List of Symphyotrichum species, List of mustelids, etc.)
  • these are all presumably extant families, are there any extinct families? Christenhusz and colleagues write We do not attempt to provide a full overview of the fossil history of each family, as this is a different discipline and not relevant to the general reader interested in living plants
  • how stable is this? are there families that were once considered to be in this grade but are no longer? ones which recently were moved? do any notable sources disagree with Christenhusz and colleagues?
    • Disagreements: that's already in Note e. That's the only disagreement I'm aware of. And the wikiproject is more or less on board with going with POWO's current taxonomy (for flowering plants, anyway). - Dank (push to talk)
  • Christenhusz and colleagues also mention information about each family's phylogeny and evolution, how long they've been in the fossil record, as well as the number of genera and species. Is there a reason you prioritized the etymology over those?
    • One reason of course is the current change in direction to etymology, but another reason for not including species and genera counts is: they change too fast. - Dank (push to talk)
  • (usually a genus for which the family is named) so are any of these etymons not the type genus? feel this should be clarified if any have non-obvious type genera
    • They're all the current type genera ... I didn't feel a need to say that "there are no exceptions" when people could find that out by skimming to see that there are no exceptions. But I wouldn't object to adding text to that effect if you want to suggest something. The two previous lists did have exceptions, so if reviewers approve of the direction this list is going, I'll probably say more about that in the previous lists. - Dank (push to talk)
  • I'm not really sure why you have a Latin and Greek dictionary in your Further reading; cite them if you need to any etymologies, but WP:FURTHER reads A large part, if not all, of the work should be directly about the subject of the article -- neither of these are directly applicable, just a few entries might be indirectly relevant to etymologies.
  • in general I'd like to see specific page numbers for each family's common name versus a single citation to a 44-page span for better text-source integrity, although I suppose the footnotes on distribution do provide this
    • One reviewer sort of brought that up for the previous list (but then decided the span was okay after all). This isn't a big deal, of course, it's not hard to add a cite, but ... many of the rows cite the relevant 1 or 2 pages three times already ... I don't know. An extra citation would feel a bit like overciting to me, for various reasons. - Dank (push to talk)
    • Added a note; see below. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • which source are you using for which orders compose "lilioid monocots" as a grade? I also feel this lead should to a better job explaining that this is a grade, not a clade. I see your footnote The lilioid monocots are a subgroup but not a clade, but as a reader I'm wondering why does this even exist as a group, what use does it have, etc. I know most of this information should be in the main article for the grade, so you don't need to go into too much detail, but I found it interesting that Christenhusz and colleagues never mention the term "lilioid monoclot", so a bit of discussion justifying this as a useful category might be useful? I'm not a botanist, so just these are my questions as a reader.
    • I asked a similar question of Plantdrew (I won't ping them unless you need them) ... on whether it made sense to do what I'm doing, using "commelinids" in one page title but "lilioid monocots" in the other. Basically, their position was that that was what they were leaning towards, since Commelinids and Lilioid monocots are the page names we've had for a while. I think the support for those pages also expresses a preference for how folks at WP:PLANTS tend to classify these plants. My sense is that the sources are also nearly unanimous on this point, but I'm not the best person to ask. - Dank (push to talk)
    • I want more feedback on how the plants wikiproject wants to tackle this before I proceed. - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The word "grade" has now been added and sourced to a definition. - Dank (push to talk) 22:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a lot of experience with FLCs or WP:PLANTS for that matter, these are just my immediate thoughts when I see the article. I'll do a closer read later. Umimmak (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: with the name move and emphasis on etymology, this seems like it just repeats what’s in List of plant family names with etymologies for these families? Umimmak (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first, I'm not finished, I'm about to add two images to each row. WP:Summary style applies to lists as well as non-lists, and it's not just okay at FLC, it's encouraged, to create sublists of existing lists that have more (hopefully useful) details. The points that you're bringing up are similar to points that came up twice before (I think) when I was getting all my etymology lists through WP:FLC; see my user page. Each time, after some discussion, the answer wound up being the same: a slight shift of the list name and the focus. It worked before, and I hope it will work now. There were actually some good reasons for trying to get people on board with these as plant lists, but the changes you're asking for (which you're completely entitled to ask for, and you're right about what the proposed guidelines say) won't work here; these lists are something different than the usual plant lists, and they have different goals. So ... it's time to shift the focus back to etymology ... with the permission of the reviewers, of course. Let's see what people have to say. - Dank (push to talk) 21:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, finished (though I'm going to change a handful of images later). Some of your questions probably don't apply to this list now (since it's structured as a list of names and etymologies), but some still need answers ... I'll reply inline later tonight. Thanks for your comments. - Dank (push to talk) 22:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the speedy review, and it was helpful, too. Anything else I can help with? - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to reiterate that I really don't have much experience with plant articles, featured lists, or with etymology lists on Wikipedia and hopefully other editors can provide more guidance; I don't want to lead you too off course based off the musings of a random editor.
I hesitate to talk about process of any kind on Wikipedia, because such discussions are often perceived as ... or turn out to be ... one of those games where the goal is to successfully change the rules of the game so that you win the game. But there is something about WP:FLC (and WP:FAC) that probably needs to be said, because it's so different from so-called "normal editing", so that you'll understand why I'm saying no to some of the requests. In "normal editing", if you're chatting with just one other person, then it's really a two-person conversation ... sure, there are guidelines to follow that were (usually) written by other people, and anyone could show up at any moment ... but in the moment, it's just a (hopefully friendly) chat between two people. At FLC, it's never just two people. The others aren't talking at the moment ... I'd be surprised if more than a few are even paying attention, they tend to be busy, successful Wikpedians with better things to do ... and if they are watching, they aren't interjecting because that's (often) the etiquette around here ... but they're around. This is the 14th in a series of FLCs, so that's what, maybe 40 or 50 reviewers so far? I'm not saying there's any heavy burden involved, I just have to employ reasonable social skills, and not assume that the next person walking in the door overrules everyone else because they happen to have the floor for the moment. - Dank (push to talk)
I still think it'd be important to have the authorities for each family if this is a list of families; did Plantdrew have any thoughts on that? I couldn't find your conversation. And now if this is about etymologies, well then perhaps the authorities for each type genus should be includes as it was their decision which affected the name of each family.
Search for "Dank" on Plantdrew's current talk page (but there's not much to see there). We didn't talk about authorities. My reading of the proposed guideline you're citing, MOS:ORGANISM#Sources and authorities, is that it specifically recommends not to list authorities in running text except in specific cases, and this isn't one of those cases ... this isn't (now) a list of plants. And I've got other objections, but that one seems sufficient to me.
I'm not sure if I'm still quite convinced by this page's new goals; if a reader is at List of plant family names with etymologies, what additional information about etymologies do they get by going to List of lilioid monocot family names with etymologies?
Most people's perception of etymology is something that happens in one or two lines in a dictionary ... of course it makes sense to ask "What's the point of all this other stuff?" But that's not all etymology is ... broadly speaking, it's whatever answers a reader's questions about where a word comes from, questions such as: Should I care? (Well, if this plant doesn't grow anywhere near you, then maybe you don't care, so here's some information on the global distribution.) Have I seen this plant, is this something I'm already familiar with? (Well, here's a one-sentence description and a couple of images, maybe that will help.) Is there any special reason to care about this word more than other plant words? (Well, here are a few things unique to these plants, maybe that will whet your appetite for this bit of knowledge.) And so on.
... If "lilioid monocot" is a standard grade (a word which, I think, should appear in this article?), sure then it makes sense to have a list of its families, but I personally don't see the need to repeat etymologies when I could see valuable table space being given to other topics. But again this is from someone who doesn't really know what he's talking about! The lead has information about monocots as a whole, but I'd like to see more information about this particular group; what are the defining characteristics of lilioid monocots and what is your source for which orders/families are included?
Seems reasonable, I'm just not the ideal person to answer. I'll ask around.
Umimmak: on this point, we're in luck, because User:Michael Goodyear is a stalwart of the plants wikiproject, knows a huge amount about lilioids, and got lilioid monocots up to GA. I've looked over the approach he's taking in the article and on the talk page, and decided to borrow the first sentence below the lead from that article, because I think it deftly answers several of your questions all at once. (And I have no objection to pulling in more sentences from the article, if necessary ... but I want to keep this list lightweight if possible, and suitable for readers who are new to botany to the extent that that's possible.) I've added that sentence added an edited version of that sentence as the second sentence in my lead. (The ref is a dead link but it's available online elsewhere, I'm working on that now.) Christenhusz is the source for the included orders and families; I've made that clearer. (It used to be really clear ... I had it right after "33" at one point ... but one of the previous reviewers didn't like cites in the middle of a sentence.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just be sure to follow Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia if you're borrowing sentences from that other article. I'm still confused how Christenhusz and colleagues' book is the source given they don't use the word lilioid once though? That's a fine source for which families are in those four orders, but they don't say that those four orders make up the grade "lilioid monocot", if that makes sense? And yeah just broad response to your other comments I think it makes sense to hear more from WP:PLANTS too. Umimmak (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"lilioid" is supported by the other two cites (one of which I just added, Meerow), not by Christenhusz. - Dank (push to talk) 02:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned above that you have more comments coming; I'll wait for the rest of them before I reply. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to be clear: I very much want your comments, I just want all of them at once so I can do some research and balance them against what other people have asked for, and hopefully make everyone happy. Case in point: I had "clade" in the first sentence in my last nomination, and another review asked me to remove it to avoid confusing some readers. You wanted to see "grade", so I've put that in, but not in the first sentence ... my guess is that the other reviewer wouldn't object to its current position. Solutions often involve moving words around, and it will help me to come up with solutions if I can see all the comments at once. (Btw, I've got some health problems at the moment, so it might take me a day or two, a few days at worst.) - Dank (push to talk) 01:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And if this article is more about etymology, this should be reflected in the lead now, too.
I thought about that, so I had another look at the 11 previous lists I did on plant etymology, and I made sure that every sentence that appears in the lead of List of plant family names with etymologies also appears in an appropriate place this list ... and they all do. (In fact, only one sentence wasn't already in this list, I added it yesterday, it's in the first note.) My feeling is that the places where these sentences appear now are the best places, but if you really want one or two to also appear in the lead, that can be arranged.
I still sort of think some of the information in footnotes might be better served in the lead (b and e, particularly)
If we're talking about the note about Burmannia, I definitely don't want that in the lead ... I can explain if you like. If we're talking about the "not a clade" business, I'm asking around about that. If we're talking about the rest of Note b, another reviewer asked me to remove it from the lead or move it, and I agreed with that assessment.
... and I still maintain my original comments about further readings: neither of these are directly applicable, just a few entries might be indirectly relevant to etymologies.
Point taken, and I've just removed all except for these two references from the further reading section of List of alismatid monocot families (and btw, yes, the plan is to convert that list to an etymology list as well, but let's wait and see how this FLC goes first). But as for the Greek and Latin lexicons: they're staying, they're essential. It might or might not be helpful to see my first list, List of descriptive plant species epithets (I–Z), to see how deeply one of those lexicons (the Latin one) supports the past two centuries of botanical etymology. The Greek lexicon is just as important. See below. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, hopefully more experienced editors provide thoughts as well. Umimmak (talk) 05:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully! Thanks for your thoughts. - Dank (push to talk) 13:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading all this, I'm aware that there's kind of a central point that I've been avoiding, namely: there are good reasons for this almost-a-plant-list to be simpler and less cluttered than normal plants lists. Roughly speaking: in addition to serving other functions, this list is trying to be useful as an introduction to some topics in botany, especially for those readers who find our usual botany articles ... too technical, too forbidding. I'm not saying we can't add anything, it's often possible to keep everyone happy by moving words around ... but I want to make sure that the list doesn't become less readable for readers who are new to botany (but who would like to learn more). - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think authorities for families should be included if they're going to appear as "Amaryllidaceae J.St.-Hil. (onion family)". Authorities are relevant to etymology as they actually coined the name of the family. But that gets complicated in the early history of modern taxonomy; entities that we now call families were sometimes called orders, and the -aceae ending for families wasn't a standard; J.St.-Hil.'s spelling was Amaryllideæ; I have no idea who first used the spelling Amaryllidaceae. Plantdrew (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yep, it's complicated. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Umimmak: 1. The "Further reading" section is now gone. 2. I've added a note saying: "The vernacular name is the first thing that appears in each family section in the source, and the order that each family belongs to appears at the top of each page." I hope that deals with your objection about the lack of cites in the first column and the orders column. 3. I'm not sure if your comment about checking with the WP:PLANTS wikiproject is more like "It's always good to check with the wikiproject" or "OMG this stuff is crap, check with the wikiproject". I've had feedback and even supports from people who are respected by the wikiproject, and I'll keep asking, but I don't want to put anyone on the spot. If this is a burning concern, let me know, and I'll email PresN (an FLC delegate) with more detailed information. - Dank (push to talk) 14:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well you yourself said I want more feedback on how the plants wikiproject wants to tackle this before I proceed. so I was just saying that yeah that makes sense to not just listen to me, who again does not have much experience with FLCs for with plant articles on Wikipedia. Honestly the more this is going on the more I'm realizing I'm fully not qualified to give the best possible FLC advice. I said I might have more comments coming, but I'd like to just hear from others on FLC just to make sure I'm not leading you too far astray. But if this is about etymology now, perhaps the talk page should have either {{Etymology section}} or {{WikiProject Linguistics|etymology=yes}} (although again I personally thought this was a stronger article before the focus shifted to etymology, especially given List of plant family names with etymologies, but again I'm just one editor who doesn't have much FLC experience.) Umimmak (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks for your comments. - Dank (push to talk) 17:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Undone ... I remember now that a similar tag or cat was reverted on one of the earlier etymology articles. Okay, the changes that I've made in response to these comments, I've carried over into the other two lists in this series, so I think that covers everything. Agreed with "I'd like to just hear from others" ... and hopefully get some supports, too. - Dank (push to talk) 04:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

edit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • No issues. There were some minor things but I just went ahead and fixed them
Reliability
  • No issues
Verifiability

Comments from HAL

edit
  • I would put a clause after Lilium candidum in the caption (maybe idenity it as a lily and note its importance in culture), as you do with Vanilla planifolia
  • It also may look cleaner if you put them both in a vertical image template, but that's up to you.
    • I'm not good with images in general, but I've generally had to make images free-floating for them to display correctly on mobile devices and in small windows. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Should "Lilium" be italicized?
  • Maybe put "Liliales, Asparagales, Dioscoreales, Pandanales and Petrosaviales" in alphabetical order
  • What are "glandular hairs"? Is there an appropriate link?
  • Amaryllis was the name of a mythical Greek shepherdess The Amaryllis says the name is taken from a Greek shepherdess in Virgil's Eclogues. I haven't read the Eclogues (an unread copy is staring at me from my bookshelf as I type this), and I'm not sure if Virgil invented Amaryllis. If he did, she's not really mythological. I'm not sure. I would check and clarify this.
    • That's what some of my sources say, but others say the name comes from mythology ... the only way for both to be true is if the name comes from mythology, I think. - Dank (push to talk)
  • For the Global distributions, is Antarctica/the Arctic generally diregarded? Is a note needed in the key? Here is it considered a desert?

That's all. Nice work. ~ HAL333 21:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other reviews

edit
  • No major issues for me (though I'm far from an expert in this), so I'm happy to support. My only suggestion would be to remove some of the links to specific entries in Glossary of botanical terms and instead link to the specific articles – for instance, Tepal is probably a more useful link than Glossary of botanical terms#tepal. But I think this is a relatively small issue. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Actually, I'll say it twice: thanks. Happy to have 3 supports on this one, it was starting to feel like it was dragging. This series of lists is meant to be a type of Wikipedia-flavored survey course ... and one thing that's recommended in designing survey courses is to stick to short, non-academic definitions that tell the students roughly what they need to know to understand the material they're reading. I'm really enthusiastic about the approach taken at the glossary ... whoever wrote those definitions made excellent choices. And: for anyone who wants more, the glossary entry is virtually always linked to some main article, so help is just a click away. Does that work for you? (If not, that's fine, let's talk a bit more about survey courses and see if we can find middle ground.) - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was expressing a personal preference more than anything. The benefit of linking to an article is that it avoids that extra click if it is needed, and a well-written article should still start with a solid definition on the word/phrase. Again, just my 2¢ – there's no one right way to write an article/list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • RunningTiger, I can reduce the links to the botanical glossary in the next list by adding my own glossary (above the Legend), with terms explained and linked to the main articles. I hope you'll drop by, at least with a drive-by comment, and tell us whether that works for you or not. This particular list is the last in a series of three ... I'd rather not make any big-ish changes at this point without contacting the previous supporters for these three lists, and I've already contacted them a couple of times ... I don't want to get a reputation as a pest (more than I have already :). - Dank (push to talk) 15:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not an image review

edit

I can't do an image review for my own nomination, but since the only table images I selected were for Asphodelus, it probably does make sense for me to verify that I've checked everything, so ... that's what this is. Also see the same section in the FLC for the lamiids. This version of the list was soon after I transferred the images selected by Johnboddie in his sandbox. Licensing:

  • 48 are "own work" with no indication at all that they aren't. 12 licenses were verified by the Flickr bot, 3 by the iNaturalist bot, and 1 by the Panoramio bot.
  • File:Vanilla1web.jpg is a US government employee photo.
  • The three illustrations are very old; no copyright problems.
  • Image composition is generally excellent. Alt text is always present, and spare but acceptable.
  • Happy to do more research if needed. - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

edit
  • Only starting to reread. Trivial point: the same terms are linked again and again in the list box. Would link perennial however, and herbaceous in first instance outside the lead.
    • I want to start with a reply about FLC vs. FAC, since you're as familiar with FAC as anyone is, I suspect. At FAC, each new reviewer has the freedom (ideally) to say whatever seems right to them, on the theory that: if other reviewers and nominators care about this stuff, they'll be watching, and if you need them, you can ping them. And anyway, most long-time reviewers will be on the same page on major issues; they've seen it all a hundred times. FLC in general is a bit different; people aren't as invested in the process, and they don't generally hang around, and don't want to keep coming back after they've already supported. The assumption is: after they've had their say and the nom has responded, then things are going to stay more or less the same after that. I could fix the first problem you're bringing up by creating a new section, a glossary ... and in fact I've started doing that already in my new lists (List of basal asterid families for instance). But that change is probably too big to make at FLC after this many supports. I can be more flexible if you jump in as the first or second reviewer on one of the new lists.
    • Okay, so now I can answer your question: I can't do that. FLC rules (and outside FLC, too) say that if a term is linked in one row of a sortable table, it has to be linked in every row where it shows up ... because we don't know how the user will sort, so we don't know which row they'll see first. But I can do this much, per your request: in the glossary at List of basal asterid families, I've just added "perennial". ("herbaceous" was already there.)
    • That makes sense, and yes I do find that am applying FAC criteria on FL, but learning. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should these article types have a sub-section on the history and basis for the taxonomy, with mention of John Lindley etc? It seems remiss to base a page on their groupings without using their names.
    • Imagine you're on a faculty and you're trying to put together a survey course for, say, a historical period of music. How much of the syllabus would you want to devote to how experts decided to classify the instruments, and who won and who lost these academic battles? It's very important to some readers, and not so much to others. In this list: I'm not absolutely against it, but on balance I think it would be better to handle whatever needs to be said in a note rather than in the main text. Any suggestions?
    How about something like the taxonomies was first grouped by John Lindley in 1830, and includes five orders... Ceoil (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • trivial: Some sections within the "Description and uses" column end in punctuation, some not. eg Rhizomatous herbaceous perennials, with just one or a few leaves clustered at the plant's base[52] - period needed?
    • I just checked the final punctuation on that column again and couldn't find any mistakes. It follows the logic of WP:CAPFRAG for captions ... if it's one sentence fragment, no period; anything more and you need a period.
    Fine, MOS is somethinh i dont really understand, hence of course, why I follow people lile you"! Ceoil (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • trivial: Nitpicking and out of curiosity, re In Petrosaviales, plants have spirally arranged leaves; can we say "Petrosavial plants have spirally arranged leaves"? Similarly find the "is" in Asparagales is roughly tied...jarring. "are"? Ceoil (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • AFAIK, there's no word "Petrosavial". I changed this to "Petrosaviales is characterized by includes species with spirally arranged ...". Asparagales: I can't think of a good way to reword this. That's a singular word, and every botanist I've read uses "is" when talking about some property of the order as a whole.
      Realise now its an AM/BR English thing, similar to the "the late 80s Boston alt rock band Pixies are/is"; but it seems espically jarring now here, to my ears. But fine, consider resolved. Ceoil (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aloevera has widespread use in cosmetics, medicine and food. - are we comfortable that the word "medicine" is not misleading.
    • Good point. I felt this was justified because the source says "on a commericial scale" ... but on second thought, I never want to use the word "medicine" in these lists without mentioning a specific medical compound or use, and the source doesn't give that in this case. Removed.
  • The writing, as usual, is very crisp and clear, and the page is a joy to read though. Ceoil (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My points were quibbles, happy to Support. Ceoil (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 01:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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_list_candidates/List_of_lilioid_families/archive1&oldid=1134752415"