Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia prionotes/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SandyGeorgia 22:43, 30 August 2009 [1].

Banksia prionotes[edit]

Nominator(s): Casliber, Hesperian
Toolbox

We are nominating this for featured article because we believe it fulfils criteria. It is comprehensive and balanced — just about every source on the species has been read by the nominators and the prose subsequently thoroughly reviewed at GAN and also by two subsequent plant editors familiar with FA standards. It is adorned by some nice images too. So have at it. We feel it compares well with the other half-dozen banksia Featured Articles - co-nom by Hesperian (talk · contribs) and Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Will comment as I go through it tomorrow, but have run out of time tonight. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this took so long. There are some prose clunkers that could be fixed:
"it is usually a smaller, spreading shrub or small tree" repeated use of the word "small" could be reworked.
I tried " a shorter tree or spreading shrub" (not thrilled about adjective "shorter", but could be replaced again with "smaller" as I took out both "small"s. A shrub is by definition smaller than a tree. If "shorter tree" jars for anyone else let us know) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A shrub is by definition smaller than a tree"—I don't think so. Trees have apical dominance, that's all. I've seen Persoonia trees growing alongside much larger Adenanthos bushes. Hesperian 05:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"very greatly different": either "very different" or "greatly different", but please not both. (done)
"presumed natural hybrids have been recorded." -> possibly "presumed natural hybrids of Firewood Banksia and Acorn Banksia have been recorded", or something along those lines?
"recent falls of the water table on the Swan Coastal Plain has seen" -> "recent falls... have seen". (done)
There is some inconsistency with the formatting of references; in the first paragraph of the Conservation section, some footnotes lead punctuation, while others follow. (d'oh! found and fixed two)
could you explain what "anthesis" and "senescing" are to uninformed readers? There are wikilinks, but no real explanation in the article itself.
changed "before senescing" to "before growing old and dying (senescing)" in first instance. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok, have a look at sentences 2 and 3 in para 2 of Description now, I think it works better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"hence the species' standard author citation is Banksia prionotes Lindl" is this citing of the author's name like this necessary? Has this been done for other plant FAs? It seems over the top to the casual reader (or, at least, one casual reader).
I am inclined to disagree - this crops up alot in fungi where two different scientists have described and named an organism with the same name at different times (sometimes the same taxon and sometimes not). It is actually quite an important distinction to note, as I have worked more on various fungus and plant articles especially. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, no objection, then. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you update the links last retrieved in 2007, and see if more info has been added, or material has been changed? Not likely, but possible.
three 2007 links updated. One was expanded but nothing changed as such. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More later as I think of it. All in all, another really wonderful Banksia article. Thanks so much for your work. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Thanks so much for responding to my concerns, Cas. BTW, you removed the second instance of "senesce", but after it's been explained in the text, I feel you might as well keep it in. Same, too, with the word "small"; I only objected to the same word being repeated in the sentence, but now you've removed both instances; one could definitely go back in. Anyway, the article is looking very good. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text is present (thanks), but has some problems:

  • Eight images lack alt text; see the "alt text" button in the toolbox at upper right of this review page. I suggest replacing <gallery> (which unfortunately does not support alt text) with {{Image gallery}} or with table syntax; see WP:PIC #Galleries.
  • Some phrases cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and need to be reworded, moved to caption, or removed. These include "hybrid", "on roadside", "of hookeriana", "of prionotes", "of B. prionotes" (twice), "European honey", "dwarf form in cultivation". Please see WP:ALT #What not to specify and WP:ALT #Flawed and better examples, example 3.
  • When rewording the above, please avoid repeating the caption when possible. See example 4 of the same section.

Eubulides (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On revisit I see that the above problems were all fixed, except for the gallery because "<gallery>" does not support alt text. I replaced that with {{Image gallery}}, so the alt text looks good now. Thanks again. Eubulides (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments The usual thorough coverage by experienced FA authors. I fixed two typos, please check. Now, on to the quibbles.
  • It can be much smaller maybe it grows less tall?
  • It is pollinated by and provides food for a wide array of vertebrate and invertebrate animals later it says only pollinated by birds, should this be It is pollinated by birds and provides food for a wide array of vertebrate and invertebrate animals? (good catch, fixed)
  • dentate (toothed) leaf margins made up of triangular lobes, and often an undulate (wavy) I'm not keen, either assume your readers know what dentate and undulate mean, and don't gloss, or assume ignorance and just use "toothed" and "wavy". (removed, and plainer synonyms left in)
  • No subspecies or variety of B. prionotes has been published, is "description of" missing from this sentence? (hmm, didn't think so (??) - we meant 'other's subspecies, i.e. only the main one has been described and no other forms identified since - do you think it is ambiguous?)
  • I understood what it meant, I just thought it was imprecise - you can publish a description of a ssp, I'm not sure you can publish the ssp itself unless you squash it on the page. This is FAC, hair-splitting is obligatory for reviewers. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • changed now to "No further subspecies or varieties of B. prionotes have been described" Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subq. sect. ser. these abbreviations appear in the taxonomy without explanation, as far as I can see. I can guess the latter two, but could do with some clarification, maybe in a footnote?
(tricky - we have Section (botany) and Subgenus as pages but not one for 'series' - a link or three would be good but all available bluelinks go to the specific taxonomic pages on the sections and series. Need to think about how to do this.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • same honeyeater species Do we know which?
  • answer is most of them - Hesp added that paper, but I have seen other lists of honeyeaters which visit hookeriana. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the source: "Both species are pollinated by the same nectar-feeding birds (Meliphagidae), including the white-cheeked honeyeater (Phylidonyris nigra) and brown honeyeater (Lichmera indistincta) (Taylor & Hopper, 1988; personal observations). Even where populations are separated by several hundred metres, they are well within the daily feeding ranges of these birds (Collins & Rebelo, 1987)." But I'm reluctant to include information on pollinators in the Hybrids section, when it is already thoroughly covered in the Breeding system section. Do you feel that the particular species are important here? Hesperian 23:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I got the impression only one species was involved, in which case it might as well have been named, since that's incorrect, fine as is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to eventually supporting, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original
(I think there was only the 'Waite Orange' one...?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return (I presume you meant a cluster of them in the taxo section - got 'em) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 12 (Australian Plant Common Names...) is lacking a publisher (got it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments A very thorough treatment of the subject, supported by a great cross section of images. There are a few relatively minor issues that I picked up when reading through:
    • 1. Description
      • The seed Image does not correlate with the text description
        • I'm not sure how to handle this. The seed shown is definitely B. prionotes. But it seems the stripes have never been noticed in any publication. George (1981) says "outer surface convex, irregularly ridged, grey". George (1999) says "smooth inside, ridged outside", with no comment on colour. Thiele & Ladiges (1996), which can be useful for this kind of thing because of its thorough discussion of morphometric characters, has nothing to say about seed surface coloration. There's nothing in George (1984), George (1987), Collins et al. (2008), etcetera. Hesperian 12:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • P.S. The same zig-zag pattern can be seen in the photo of seed of this species on page 81 of Sweedman (2006). Hesperian 14:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Perhaps "matte blackish" should be omitted from the text, given it conflicts with the grey cited above.--Melburnian (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Being quite familiar with the seeds the irregularities in texture heighten the apparent colour difference when interpreted by a 2-d image (i.e. I find they look more uniform in real life). I find they can often look quite different shades of black, and dark grey in varying light. Their texture really is quite odd. Not sure how this helps when we have to go on RSs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • The photo has been checked by Hesp and it looks like the seed description is limited by lack of information in the known literature. Melburnian (talk) 03:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2 Taxonomy
      • "A sheet with a prepared specimen of B. prionotes at the University of Cambridge Herbarium (CGE), labelled "Swan River, Drummond, 1839", has since been designated the lectotype" (reads as "A sheet...has since been designated the lectotype". A mounted specimen?)
        • I've rephrased a bit, but according to the primary source for the lectotypification, 'As lectotype of B. prionotes I have selected a sheet at CGE labelled "Swan River, Drummond, 1839" and annotated by Lindley "Banksia prionotes m".' Hesperian 12:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2.1 Hybrids
    • 2.1.1 Banksia prionotes × hookeriana
      • "the extra resources available results in larger plants with more flowers and a longer flowering season" (extra resources need to be defined)
        • Addressed. Disturbed areas have more runoff and less competition. Hesperian 12:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 4.2 Nutrition and metabolism
      • "they also perform in situ nitrate reductase activities" (needs rewording in simpler language)
        • "in situ" abolished; nitrate reductase retained for now—it is linked, and I don't know enough organic chemistry to be confident of changing it without subtly changing the meaning and thus misrepresenting the source. Hesperian 12:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suppose it could be reworded to "they may also convert excess nitrate compounds to nitrites, mainly ammonium into amino acids such as asparagine and glutamine." (this is what a nitrate reductase does). Actually the more I think about it the more I like it, but the problem is an easter egg link then as in this example the verb "convert" above I'd link to nitrate reductase. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looking through the recent history the version "When soils are high in nitrates, they may also perform some nitrate reductase activities, primarily the conversion of ammonium into amino acids such as asparagine and glutamine." reads well and avoids the easter egg. I think starting a second sentence gives a breather in the rapidfire mention of technical terms which was my main concern with the version that I reviewed.--Melburnian (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
      • "Many plants with cluster roots are so adapted to impoverished soils that they cannot survive in nutrient-rich soils. This is not the case, however, with B. prionotes, which thrives when nutrients are readily available. In one reported case, individuals located in areas that received nutrient-polluted surface runoff from adjacent agricultural land were on average around 13 times larger than individuals of the same age located in pristine bush." (need to explain the circumstances of the one reported case, and give a citatation for the second sentence to confirm it's not an extrapolation from the one case)
        • I've spent about an hour trawling through the sources, and I can't find anything to support the segue from specific case to general contrast. Presumably this was a novel synthesis. I've removed the lot, as the specific case is not really very interesting with the synthesis gone. Hesperian 13:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good to remove the synthesis, but I think the reported case is still interesting. Will leave inclusion/exclusion up to you. Melburnian (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 4.3 Breeding system
      • "caged inflorescences" (needs definition or link)
        • Changed to "inflorescences do not form follicles when birds are excluded". All the same, we probably need a stub on pollinator exclusion experiments; they are a basic tool of ecologists everywhere. Hesperian 13:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agree, just needs linking of your new stub. Melburnian (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Honeyeaters forage preferentially at florets that have opened recently" (awkward wording)
        • Rephrased... though come to think of it I may have made it even worse.... Hesperian 14:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I threw up "Honeyeaters prefer to forage at individual flowers which have only just opened, as these offer the most nectar" as an alternative as it gets the key points across. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 5 Conservation
      • "it is exploited commercially by the cut flower industry" (need to explain the activities involved in the exploitation)
        • changed to "wild populations are harvested commercially by the cut flower industry" - which is succinct. Is it too succinct? The fact that it is mentioned in a longer sentence on threats for me is enough (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suppose what I am getting at there is whether this activity is permitted/regulated/licensed by the government and if so then what makes it threatening?--Melburnian (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The answer to the first bit can be found here. I expect the answer to the second can be found in Rye et al. (1980) Commercially exploited vascular plants native in Western Australia: census, atlas and preliminary assessment of conservation status; but it may prove a challenge to get hold of a copy. Hesperian 05:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • The linked document answers my main question, and being 257 pages long would require a separate detailed article to address, a quick stub won't do the job. In that case I think go with Cas's wording above and leave it at that. Melburnian (talk) 06:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm glad you're happy... but now I'm wondering whether there is enough information to expand coverage of this a bit. The link above says it is covered by the standard license, and that "Green leaves must be left below the harvest cut for regeneration to occur." And this says "Large flowers limit export potential; demand falls when B. hookeriana is available." It might be time I tracked down a copy of this. Hesperian 13:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think we need a separate article along the lines of "Bankias for cut-flower production" to support the species articles in this area, and as a worthwhile topic in itself. That manual looks like it would be well worth tracking down.Melburnian (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "The species is not considered particularly vulnerable to these factors" (needs wording to contrast a single plant vs the species as a whole)
Melburnian (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Engaging and well-written, this article satisfies all FA criteria, and it is beautifully illustrated. Graham Colm Talk 16:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very clearly written, well supported, and good coverage of the topic. It is a pleasure to read. Eubulides (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, a dual thankyou from me and Hesp for all the supports :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • support ncely written,no apparent probelms subject is well covered, nice photogrpahs :) Gnangarra 04:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - The extensive number of images are pretty much all, luckily, uploaded by the two nominators. I have cleaned up the images; they look great! NW (Talk) 01:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can this sub-heading be modified ?

  • Banksia prionotes × hookeriana

It repeats the article name, and contains a special character. (And, I have no idea what it means :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is the traditional way that hybrids are described Species A x B. I changed to something which segues off the parent heading. How's that? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally it was better before. Hesperian 05:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like most of the captions, so I've put the boot in. Please revert if upset by this brutality Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They all seem perfectly reasonable. Thanks. Hesperian 23:27, 30 August 2009 (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_prionotes/archive1&oldid=1088118637"