Talk:Persoonia levis/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Stemonitis (talk · contribs) 08:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good at first glance; I'll give it a proper review soon. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Be as tough as you like. I actually meant to review Coconut Crab but was cursed by a dodgy wireless connection and several hours of frustration... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, here goes... Here's a fairly unstructured list of suggested improvements, most of which aren't required for GA status:

Link levis.

nice - hadn't thought of linking latin words! Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very short 2nd paragraph of #Taxonomy would be criticised in a FA review, and they'd probably have a point. I think I'd put the alternative common names after "Synopsis Plantarum", and add a paragraph break thereafter. The second paragraph is then all about relationships within and beyond the genus, while the first is all about the species.

aha, nice pickup. I was stuck with what/how to split that...I feel much better about it now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would italicise ' "Persoonia lucida" ', as well as the epithet in ' the lanceolata group '. Am I right in thinking that lucida is the hybrid offspring of P. levis and P. linearis? If so, that should probably be explained (I don't think the other hybrids have been formally named), and the name presented as "Persoonia × lucida".

yes you are - this stated to overload the parenthetical bit in the listy sentence, so have split it out straight afterwards. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link "species name" to specific name (botany).

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IPNI quotes 1921 or 1928 (it isn't entirely clear) for the combination in Persoonia, and APNI gives 1921. The text currently claims 1930.

oops, how'd that happen?? nevermind, fixed now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the superfluous full stop after "in the Upper Blue Mountains, these plants resemble P. lanceolata".

removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure New South Wales has a "north coast". Perhaps "northern".

oh yeah, it has Mid North Coast Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link Port Jackson.

linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link Victoria at least once.

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure "Proteaceae" is always capitalised (#Taxonomy, #Ecology, ref. 9).

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link or explain "perianth" in #Description. Perhaps simply re-word as "four tepals, fused for most of their length" or something similar.

rejigged. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, "drupe" will be unfamiliar to most readers, and you haven't mentioned that this is the fruit. Something like "The fruit is a green, more or less round drupe, ..." may be feasible.

rejigged. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly uncomfortable with "should not be eaten" (getting close to giving advice): perhaps "are inedible"?

yeah, I'll pay that. fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first Eucalyptus species should include the genus' name in full.

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no boldface (due to a self-link in this case) in the image caption.

removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link Leioproctus carinatifrons at least once (I've knocked up a stub about it); I'm not sure the parenthetical subgenus is really necessary.

lniked - agree subgenus unnecessary Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might be nice to have a picture of the whole plant. File:Persoonia levis 4.jpg seems the best available option. There's certainly room for another picture in the article.

ok. Will see if I can take a photo of a better one but agree that will help in the first instance. added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence of #Ecology is a run-on sentence; it shouldn't be.

rejigged that bit Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Plants can live for 60 years" is slightly ambiguous because you have just been talking about sclerophyll forest, not just P. levis.

clarified Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording suggests that weighing 1700 mg is somehow an adaptation to being (not "be") eaten by vertebrates, whereas I suspect the adaptations go somewhat deeper than the mere size (flavour, lack of toxins, seeds that resist digestion). If you can confirm that this is a case of endozoochory, that would be a good word to use, probably with a gloss.

groan - the secondary source says little on this but links to an older paper (Westoby, M., Rice, B. & Howell, J. (1990) Seed size and plant growth form as factors in dispersal spectra. Ecology 71: 1307–1315) which discusses in more detail but is mainly focussed on high proportion of ant-dispersed seeds in Sydney bushland - it touches on fleshy fruit being vertebrate-dispersed but does not expand upon that point at all. Thus I can't do anything about the source. The question is whether to get another source not specifically about the plant and discuss or leave as is... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Plantsmen in England were able to germinate seed there in 1795." This suggests that something has changed. Are plantsmen less capable now than before? Or was this just the first time it was done? You might also link to plantsman, the connotations of which may not be clear to a lay reader.

linked - and rejigged to avoid above interpretation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps add a "See also" link to fire ecology, or work it into the text if you prefer.

Fire ecology linked to "fire-prone" habitat - might be a bit easter egg-y...what do you think? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's borderline, but I think it's OK. I understand the desire to avoid a separate "See also" section for a single link, and I can't see a better way of slotting this in. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add a link to "Category:Persoonia levis" on the Commons, where there are plenty of files we haven't got room to show here.

linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you use an en-dash (and no spaces; cf. ref. 9) for page ranges in the references (MOS:DASH).

should be all fixed now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "Wrigley" in refs. 3 and 12 actually "Wrigley & Fagg (1991)"? If so, it might be worth finding another way of having the three citations point to the same reference (e.g. {{rp}}). If not, that citation needs to be added. Either way, it's a bit confusing at the moment.

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The full title of Weston (2003) appears to be "Proteaceae subfamily Persoonioideae. Botany of the geebungs, snottygobbles and their relatives".

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to think in advance about the topics I would expect to see dealt with in an article on a topic like this. The only ones I haven't seen in the article are:

Are there any uses of the plant – as timber, medicinal extracts, etc.? It's fine if there aren't – I just thought I'd check.

looked around - nothing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any conservation issues or statuses for the species? If not, a solution as simple as adding the word "common" somewhere may suffice.

~~might be able to add to this~~ have added some areas it grows in that are protected and discussed in a secondary source. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There may be other minor points after I re-read the article when these points have been addressed. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! I think the only thing that still needs work is the lead. It doesn't contain anything from the #Taxonomy section beyond the common name; I think the discussion of related species and occasional hybrids is probably more important than who described it when. I think the lead could also do with a few more links; there are only two after the first line, even though this will be the first appearance of most of the concepts discussed (perhaps link kangaroo, possum, currawong, bushfire and soil seed bank; I think the rest should be commonly understood). Finally, I find the last sentence awkward. I would re-word it to something like "Since it is hard to propagate, P. levis is rarely found in cultivation." A range map would be brilliant if the information is available, but certainly not a requirement. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lede now rejigged - map to come. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comment(s)[edit]

Only comment for now: "Plants can live for over 60 years" (lede) isn't a complete sentence. ;) HurricaneFan 25 00:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

?? - it is a sentence (has a subject and verb) but it is short and needs clarifying. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I mean it needs a full stop/period at the end. Whatever

HurricaneFan 25 00:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Success[edit]

Excellent work, and all carried out quickly and painlessly. It's been a pleasure, and I'm now more than happy to award this article GA status. It more than satisfies the GA criteria. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]