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 Karanacs 03:31, 9 June 2011 [1].

Banksia paludosa[edit]

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

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is up there with the other 16 Banksia FAs. I am planning on going to look at these plants over the autumn/winter and found myself just sprucing up the page, and I thought, what the heck. This one is pretty short and I'll try to be super quick in replying....have at it. (PS: This is a wikicup nomination) Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts- — J Milburn 11:25, 27 May 2011 — continues after insertion below

the nominate one - I suppose I could just say subsp. paludosa...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I'll pay that. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-->known in this stage an as infructescence. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
added Casliber (talk · contribs)
aah, the caps at the beginning we must have added a long time ago and forgotten about. All lower case now (as all taxa apart birds are). Italics I saw as words-as-words usage in our MOS, but they do jar a little alongside scientific names I must say. I can go either way on this one. They are quite useful on non-bird articles where a name is in lower case and help make it stand out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say that this was the best example of words-as-words, (perhaps if you were saying something like "Both authors agreed it was a beetle, but Smith named it red while Jones saw it as orange") and I agree that they're confusing alongside the scientific names- I'd lose them. J Milburn (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
good point - like many articles, they are stubs. All info currently in them is in the parent species article, and I've placed all info possible in parent article, so there is nothing left that would be exclusive to the subspecies articles, which is a good case of a merge.Been a bit busy so not high on my agenda of looking at. Hesperian began them I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've boldly redirected for the time being, and removed the links from the main article. If they serve some purpose I've missed, feel free to revert. J Milburn (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I generally treat "species" level as the finest split for article subjects, unless we have a highly significant subspecies for whatever reason. This second subspecies sort of broadly fits that category but not much is known about it really and all the info can be placed on the species page easily. Hesperian made the pages and he's having a bit of down time at the moment, but I think he'll be ok with it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All parts are the same apart the habit and the presence/absence of lignotuber. I will see if I can clarfiy How's that? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the three species. clarified Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've bluelinked it up a treat Casliber (talk · contribs)
uncapitalised now Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
reffed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
linked. None should be caps apart from birds, which sets up a big headache in terms of page look and consistency...I capitalised the mammal species as they were adjacent - I could uncap the whole lot or keep it strictly as it is supposed to be -this is a perennial problem and differs from page to page depending on layout. The real problem is these plants having so many pollinators... Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should be consistent within any one article, regardless of the group. Ucucha 07:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
possibly, typing in variations on google give me a million links to the goddamn book, but might be worthy of further investigation (books not on internet will be required I think) - he certainly grew alot of species for 1826! Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, they are the low growing coastal forms mentioned in cultivation - added bracketed adjective to clarify. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
here and here - added descriptor. He did masses of study on eastern banksias and a thesis. Lots of amazing detail Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
added Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images mostly check out, copyrightwise, though the captions are a little odd. More info wouldn't go amiss on File:Banksia paludosa.JPG (formatting the info into a more standard information template would also be useful) and what map image did you base File:Banksia paludosa nswmap.png upon? J Milburn (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Australia New South Wales location map blank.svg - added a note to the map page on commons. The other image was uploaded by PDH (talk · contribs) who is largely inactive these days (but seems to pop in now and then) - I've emailed her to see if she can add where it was taken etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

damn, I knew I meant to fix that pesky template. replaced and rejigged now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
see above Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
states unabbreviated Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the new cite doi template. Not sure why it's not updated yet. see here and look at page now :). Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weird - I take it the publisher = Bristol Nursery - see [2] good thing is we now have a oclc number anyways. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I passed this as a GA, and think it meets all FA criteria. Did you see my question at the talk page, though, Cas? Ucucha 07:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I replied there with a fix and mini query. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problems with the piece about cultivation anymore; my question is on sources, in the section I linked to. Ucucha 17:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
answered there - false positive :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking. Ucucha 07:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two subspecies are recognised, the nominate of which is a spreading shrub to 1.5 m (5 ft) in height, and the other (subsp. astrolux) a taller shrub to 5 m (16 ft) high found only in Nattai National Park. — Clunky, what about Two subspecies are recognised; the nominate form is a spreading shrub to 1.5 m (5 ft) in height, and astrolux is a taller plant, up to 5 m (16 ft) high, found only in Nattai National Park?
  • fade to grey — Link? (:
  • It grows in nutrient-poor well-drained sandstone soils — it? Astrolux, or the species as a whole?
took 'em both but left the song :) thx ++ Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My above concerns have been resolved, I am confident that this article is ready for FA status. J Milburn (talk) 14:38, 30 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.
More