- 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 05:03, 27 May 2011 [1].
Banksia marginata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to nominate a banksia for a while but got interested in this one as it is a taxonomic conundrum, so I buffed it for my own education...and well here I am. Have at it. I'll try and be prompt in answering queries. (There are 16 others to compare to, if anyone wants to check and compare to see what I might have missed) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
- Is "Alf" a nickname or an abbreviation? Was this a master's or PhD thesis?
- His name was Abraham Isaac Salkin, but everyone knew him as 'Alf' so...I dunno, just what everyone called him in all correspondence (and how he answered the phone :)) It was an M Sc thesis. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether our not you provide publisher locations, and if you do whether you include states for Australian locations (most you do both , but not all)
- I'll slot all the states in and locations where I can. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Provide page numbers for multi-page PDFs
- What does IBIS stand for?
- Nothing earth-shattering. --> this. is it worth explaining in article? Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Check formatting on FN 16, 41
- got 'em Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether you include "England" in London-based refs (I would prefer not, or at least using UK instead, but it's up to you)
- I think I have UK'ed them all.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in how multi-author refs are formatted
- I am not sure what you mean here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Thiele, Kevin and Pauline Y. Ladiges" vs "Taylor, Anne; Hopper, Stephen" - why the difference? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Aah, missed that - fixed now. mere oversight on my part. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in how volumes/editions are notated
- resolved (I think) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be consistent in whether page numbers appear before or after ISBNs
- One source we've used a pesky template for.
I'll rejig that rejigged. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Use endashes for all page ranges
- got 'em all Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In general, formatting needs to be much more consistent. The sources themselves appear appropriately scholarly. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I have nothing to add from the GA nomination, I feel this is ready for featured article status. For the record, all images check out. J Milburn (talk) 10:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
banksia expert — cap for banksias?
- Tricky as I'd either use nonitalicised banksia (commn name) or genus name (italicised and capitalised). Given the monograph George wrote, I'll align it as genus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- some forms (in lead) — where have these come from, there are no ssp, so what are these? Never really made clear as far as I can see
- aha, I've been sloppy. Form (botany) can mean any minor variation and alot of botanists and plantspeople use the term loosely to describe (essentially) any origin with any possible characteristics. Heeding your puzzlement at the term's use I have looked over, and some replaced with "population" since that is what is more aptly meant, and in one instance "habit". I can see why this has only arisen with this species as it is so widely variable, yet no subspecies or varieties are recognised, yet "form" is a sort of all-encompassing short hand I've resorted to. Anyway, tweaked now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"forms" three times in para 2
- see above Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, it — I'm not sure that either "conversely" or "it" are correct. In what sense is a bush the opposite of a tree? And I think the subject referred to is plural
- it is more the stark contrast between it growing as a 12 metre high tree, and a 20 cm shrub. Not exactly "opposite" but a huge and remarkable difference within the one species. However, I have changed from the stark "conversely" to the not-opposite-but-still-contrastive "while" and pluralised that segment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1.5–6 cm/0.59–2.4 in long and 0.3–1.3 cm/0.12–0.51 in. — delusions of accuracy. How can the inch figure be accurate to one-hundredth of an inch?
- gah! more template:convert madness. I find it makes the simple complicated, but found some tweaks that make it give sensible conversions now (hopefully). Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I always do conversions by hand, less problems in the long run Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Description —please split this interminable sentence
- ?? - ummm...you've lost me. Which one? Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In Firefox 4 at least, the whole of "Description" is one sentence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 20:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Aah, you mean paragraphs not "sentences"? Done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Duh - how do I ever get my own FAs threw when I can't even use the right word! Changed to support, good luck, Cas. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - y'know someone corresponded with me reporting this growing outside in a garden in Leeds...need to find the ref for that somewhere...hehehe Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images
- Why do some captins begin with lowercase letters?
- Captions that are sentences (i.e. they have a verb in them) need a capital and period. Others should not have either. I could make them all (or none) sentences I guess.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a big problem, but the link to Harrison's website on several of the image pages appears to be broken
- Aah, I think JJ Harrison (talk · contribs) would be best placed to answer that. I'll ask him when he's next around.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the Australian Government Publishing Service Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments - Another nice Banksia article. I really need to travel down under to see all of these plants I keep reading about :) A few thoughts:
- Description. "to possibly 30 m". We don't know for sure?
- Official herbarium description gives 12 m as maximum height, and the reports of taller trees are not officially verified Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Taxonomy and naming, "(having crossed out Van Diemen's Land 1804)". I'm not sure what this means?
- It means Brown made a mistake - he thouight the specimen came from Tasmania but it came from Victoria. I find this stuff fascinating, the taxonomic history. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Taxonomy and naming, "The French naturalist Aimé Bonpland called it Banksia marcescens Bonpl.," When?
- 1816. added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Taxonomy and naming, "Kevin Thiele placed it in a subseries Integrifoliae," When?
- 1994. added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Taxonomy and naming, "he found it to be the most basal member, within the Salicinae" Should Salicinae be italicized? Also, I'm not completely understanding what this is trying to say. It was the most basal member within the Salicinae (i.e., lose the comma)? Or, it was the most basal member of Integrifoliae? Or something else completely?
- Aha, most basal of Integrifoliae, which lies within the salicinae - reworded. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Distribution and habitat, "from mixed forest (where it grows as a small tree), button grass moorlands, flood plains of the Loddon, Franklin and Huon Rivers, as well as coastal regions." Seeing a "from", I'm expecting a "to" somewhere...
- Aha, just changed to "in" as there isn't a hard-core sequence of habitats listed here Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall very good. Once the above comments are taken care of, I'll have no problem supporting the article. Dana boomer (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for the slow response. Everything looks good, so I've changed to a support. Nice work. Dana boomer (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, thanks, some alpine forms could probably handle down to -15C and snow. Maybe that'd grow on a south-facing wall somewhere where you are...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, it might, if it was protected. Or even in the (unheated) greenhouse... It often gets down to -20C for a few days in the wintertime + several feet of snow, but it's the wind that's the killer of plants around here... But then there's all of the importation permits and everything. I think I'll just use that as an excuse to come down to Australia - I've been looking for just such an excuse for a while :) Dana boomer (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- It says "24 feet high and a trunk girth of two feet". These need conversions to make it widely accessible.
Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- added - left metric second and in parentheses as the description is old and was in imperial units. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "1.5–6 cm/0.6–2.4 in long": YMMV, but I've generally asked people to do something about "in" when it might be misinterpreted as, well, "in". The usual format (with parentheses around the second units) would work for me. - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree - I hate that formatting style which template:convert gave me this time. I'd not seen it before and was pondering tweaks to make it parenthetical. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- update, its the "disp=s" parameter.
I just removed them all but got edit-conflicted. Feel free to remove them or I will in a few hours. Gotta attend to RL....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Got it now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In Banksia marginata#Placement within Banksia, in the sentence starting "In this arrangement", it's generally best to avoid using semicolons to separate elements of the series if there's an easy way to do it. Since you've only got one comma (in the first element), it's probably doable; one way would be to make the first element the last element in the series.
- I think this is readily navigated with commas, so just changed the semicolons to commas. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- thx :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That gallery is distracting, but never mind, that's just my personal opinion ... what I really don't understand is why the gallery captions begin with lower case, while all other captions in the article begin with uppercase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A string of words without a finite verb in it is not a sentence and hence does not need a capital to start it nor a period to end it. If I converted to sentences, some would sound odd. I might try the other way for uniformity. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: I'd not normally use a gallery but I really wanted to capture the remarkable variability of this species and show the images next to each other for maximum contrast. It is pretty unique in this way. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, MOS review needed-- I saw MOSNUM issues, missing conversions, and failures of Precise language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the first half, "1.5–6 cm/0.6–2.4 in long": MOSNUM prefers parentheses. Need conversion for 2–5 mm. I don't see any WP:DATED problems in the first half. Anyone available to tackle MOS issues in the second half? - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- D'oh, missed those three - got 'em now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently no help coming, plodding onward(s). Conversions needed: 400 to 1000 mm, 1200 metres, 8 m.
- got 'em Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The collection was displayed in various exhibitions, and is currently housed": Sandy has flagged this for a "Precise language" check. Can you tell from the source whether this collection is housed there more or less permanently? If so, it's fine if you remove "currently". If not, add "of as 2011", if the accessdate of the cite is a good indication.
- permanent, hence currently removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- == Prostrate shrub - linked. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- thx++ :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is tasty. I reviewed the lead and worked out a few issues with Casliber; the details have been moved to the FAC talk page to avoid clutter. I am very satisfied with the lead as it currently stands. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ucucha:
"ranging from a small 20 cm (8 in) high shrub to a large 12 m (40 ft) tall tree"—body says it goes to 30 m, and does not mention 20 cm (it does mention 2-m shrubs; is that an error for 20 cm?).
- Yes it does - the usual range is 1-12 m, which is what the standard herbaria and monographs say, but there are some extremes of size which are mentioned in the three sentences (I think you overlooked the first sentence after the usual range) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for missing that. Ucucha 02:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Robert Brown described 31 known species of Banksia"—why the "known"? Did he also describe unknown species?
- aha, good point. removed redundant word. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further in taxonomy: why is Banksia australis mentioned in detail and not the other synonyms that Brown named? What did Bonpland call B. marcescens?
- I was fascinated that he crossed the original location out and it has been remarked unpon by George and Salkin as well. I lacked other info but I have some to add now, so I will do so for balance. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this piece could be organized a little better chronologically. Ucucha 02:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah, this bit is somewhat complex.
I'll have a think. rejigged now - is this along the lines of what you're thinking? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Ucucha 14:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ucucha 16:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks - As well as my review above, I have carried out spotchecks of the references. I have found no instances of close paraphrasing or copyvios, and all information was backed up by the given reference. Dana boomer (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are hyphenation issues throughout: a tree can be 12 m high, or it can be a 12 m-high tree. Tony usually recommends recasting the sentence to avoid the need for hyphens. Did the prose checkers not make it to the end of the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, yes the cultivation section was a bit sloppy, which you fixed (thanks). I didn't have a problem with the lead and it was analysed by a few. Still, I think avoiding that hyphen was prudent. The ones that remain as far as I can tell are uncontroversial. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.