Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia scabrella/archive1

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 14:39, 25 August 2010 [1].

---

Banksia scabrella

Banksia scabrella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Banksia scabrella/archive1

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought I wouldn't nominate any banksia articles for a while, but unexpectedly found myself in possession of the last two bits of the Banksia scabrella jigsaw puzzle known as its sources. I have digested everything there possibly is to read on this, and it's summarised into a succinct article herein. It isn't very long. Have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: external links check out and no disambiguation links. Images all have acceptable licensing. Imzadi 1979 → 06:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources ok. The different templates in use mean that sometimes page ranges are preceded by "pp.", sometime not, and the page ranges themselves are differently formatted. Compare, say, ref 3 with ref 8. I made a botched attempt to reconcile the pp inconsistencies. I imagine the ranges can be fixed quite easily. Brianboulton (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Support with some minor comments:

• "and are curved at the apex."—the perianths or the pistils?

the pistils. I have made the connecting "and" a "while" to se if that marks it out better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• What does the number after the Foulds and McMillan ref (currently no. 15) mean?

the book has no isbn number, the only number I could find is a libraries australia id. See here (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify that it is this ID? It now just looks like a random number. Ucucha 06:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've done what I can to clarify what the number is. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes it clear. Ucucha 08:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 18:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support with one comment:

• (0.6-1 in) I'd put 1.0, all other figures are quoted to one decimal place Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• ? - umm, there are a bunch of whole unit centimetre measurements without zeros at the beginning of that bit. I must admit I am not a fan of ".0" - is that a hard rule or something? Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• support one of only few banksia species I dont remember making any contributions to -- suggest giving Cas his own star stamp for banksia's Gnangarra 10:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, thanks, was proud of this one in that I was out at Burma Road Reserve and got some good pics Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The three photographs (all by Cas himself) seem fine. File:Banksiascabrellamap.png needs to give the source map. Ucucha 15:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Source map details - I'f forgotten to give whole details of book (now supplied) and government map link. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I must have been unclear—what was the base map that you put the distribution information on? Ucucha 05:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ummm...you mean the blank map of Australia? One of the ones on commons... (??) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've linked the base plan on the image description page at commons and changed the licence to match that of base plan.Melburnian (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Feel like creating a stub for "Mount Adams"? The red link is glaring at me.

   duly done Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

2. "it grows as a spreading shrub to 2 m (7 ft) in height"—the grammar makes it sound as though when it grows higher, it no longer spreads. "in height", "in shape". And "by fire", "by seed".

   spreading is a term for the habit where it "spreads" and the dimensions are greater horizontally than vertically. I eliminated the word in the lead and let the numbers speak for themselves, and clarified to "with a spreading habit" in the body of the text. Also eliminated 2nd "by" Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

3. "Originally collected in 1966, Banksia scabrella was one of several species previously considered to be forms of Banksia sphaerocarpa described by banksia expert Alex George in his 1981 revision of the genus."—I'm confused about the timeline. Comma before "described", too?

   Aha, changed to "Originally collected in 1966, Banksia scabrella was one of several species previously considered to be forms of Banksia sphaerocarpa, before it was finally described by banksia expert Alex George in his 1981 revision of the genus." - could make it "later described" or "belatedly described" - gist of it is that it floated around for 15 years, noted as an odd form of a species sphaerocarpa that was a bit of a wastebasket taxon until George sorted it out in 1981. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

4. "Banksia scabrella grows as a low spreading shrub to 2 m (7 ft) in height and 3 m (10 ft) across." Is it a low, spreading shrub? A low-spreading shrub? "high" and "across" might be a better parallelism, or "in height" and "in diameter". But I still don't get the "to 2 m". Is it implying motion?

   see above -"spreading" is its habit - wider than high essentially - and changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

5. "The small linear leaves measure 0.8 to 2.8 cm in length and 0.1 cm in width and are crowded along the stems." Perhaps "The small linear leaves that crowd along the stems are 0.8–2.8 cm long and 0.1 cm wide. PS as a scientific article, you don't have to convert 2 m to feet. (See MOSNUM.) It would save clutter throughout. Erky, look at that "Description" para, which is soooo Wikipedia. And can we have en dashes consistently? I see even a hyphen.

   Okay here's the thing, the adjective "crowded" has a specific connotation to leaf arrangement on a stem, so describing the leaves as "crowded" ...anyway, you wouldn't see it written as crowding - this is botanical. The pesky hyphens were not being picked up by the dashcoverter but I got 'em now, and I've always used imperial units on all bio articles I've done till now (groan...) - been asked to include them before.

6. Australian date format, please.

Got 'em all (I think) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

1. The map of WA is almost too big (moves into next section, or forces large white space with wide windows). Is "Mt. Adams" the standard alternative form? Is the dot necessary?

   No. fixed. I agree the map isn't great, but I can't think of a smaller segment of WA we could show that would be recognisable to the lay reader as something to mentally reference on. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

2. "Information is limited on its reliability"—reliability is an unusual concept here. Bit vague. Robustness? And "Information on its robustness is limited"? Tony (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

   Wouldn't call robust and reliable synonyms in gardening - reliable is whether the plant lives or dies and how forgiving it is to the gardener. Robustness more equates with vigour. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.