Talk:Banksia sessilis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ucucha 01:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good so far--I'll give the article a thorough read, fix any small issues I find, and come back here with any concerns. Ucucha 01:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~No alt text (not a GA criterion, but including it is a good idea regardless)~~ (alt text done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~"|ISBN status = May be invalid – please double check" - please do~~

The National Library of Australia gives the same isbn, so checked. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's another one further down the article (Wrigley, 1979). Ucucha 12:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

checked, fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~"not unlike some varieties of Ilex Aquifolium" - the MOS generally discourages links in quotes, but this may be a legitimate use.~~

(I note that the use of links is not prohibited per se, and I see this as the most practical way of linking without some ungainly explanation. I don't see how we'd otherwise link to holly, and it is a pertinent and specific enough link to be worth keeping) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds like a good reason for an exception. Ucucha 12:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~"The name Holly-leaved Dryandra was used in the Western Mail article of 1933–34" - do you mean articles?~~
~~"It is unclear whether Abbott has corrected Moore's error, or introduced an error of his own." - can you cite this?~~ (Discussed below)

I'll ask Hesperian, who added this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a conversation; I'll start a section below. Hesperian 00:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Varieties - could you also include diagnostic features and distributions for the non-autonym varieties?~~

(expanded) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. How about the distributions? Ucucha 21:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please resolve the {{fact}} tag under "Ecology".~~ (Also, does this belong under "Ecology" rather than "Characteristics", where other aspects of reproduction are covered? Ucucha 02:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
~~"Nothing is known of the conditions that affect its distribution, as its biogeography is as yet unstudied." - how about the climate change paper cited later?~~

(the paper mentioned was an overview without focussing on this species in particular, which has been little studied as yet. There are over 12000 species of flowering plants in the SW corner of Western Australia, more than Europe and Asia combined, so many haven't had much field work yet :)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. :) Would it perhaps be better to move that sentence about the influence of climate change to "Distribution and habitat" from "Ecology"? Ucucha 21:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Good idea, and done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Another fact tag under "Cultivation".~~

(I just removed a bit and sourced a bit) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Domin, Karel (1923). "[Title unknown]". Memoires de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Boheme. 2 (2): 19. - seems an odd choice for further reading.~~

(Karel Domin was an early describer of the species, but his name in the authority of the taxon dropped out after its recent renaming) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Further reading" should list works that give useful information that is not in the article, I think, and I'm having a hard time believing that a 90-year-old taxonomic paper would fall under that. Ucucha 21:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(good point. removed) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come back later with a few more general comments (if any). Ucucha 01:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Germination takes about six weeks." - this isn't only relevant to cultivation, is it?~~

technically no, but it is in a segment of text on cultivation in the source - feasibly I suspect that dry seeds might lie around in the soil for alot longer than seix weeks, so I figure it is better where it is Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The lead is focused rather too much on details of its distribution, and doesn't include information from the "Discovery and naming" and "Taxonomy" paragraphs.~~
- I see this is already stated rather more succinctly two sections above here. :) Ucucha 03:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Much better now, but the Darling Scarp and kangaroo pieces don't seem to be anywhere in the body of the article. Ucucha 13:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I subtracted the bit on kangaroos and disturbed ground for the time being. Will look to see if it can be sourced and added to body of text. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Perth bit is also not in the body. The lead is getting a bit on the short side, too. Ucucha 21:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - ditched ther Perth bit from the lead (frustrating as I know it's true - did find a limited ref which is now added in the body of the text but not the lead). added a couple of facts to the lead Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks, lead looks good now. A pity that you couldn't find a full ref for that. Ucucha 01:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images are all verifiably sourced. Consider moving a few to the left for a more varied appearance.
References all appear reliable. ~~Ref. 30 is missing the year.~~

added Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 02:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, only two issues left to address: the unsourced paragraph under "Ecology" and the minor textual problem with the "Holly-leaved Dryandra" piece. Ucucha 01:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both have been resolved, so I am now passing this as a GA—it's certainly a great introduction to this plant. Some further comments that don't have a bearing on GA status:

It would be nice if the distribution map had separate colors for the varieties, as B. sphaerocarpa does.
The "Description" is still a little on the short side. Also note my suggestion above to move the formerly unsourced paragraph under "Ecology" here.

Ucucha 13:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abbott and Moore

This is an interesting case. The reliably sourced facts before us are:

Moore (1842) lists Budjan and But-yak as indigenous names for Dryandra fraseri.
Abbott (1983) lists Budjan and But-yak as indigenous names for Dryandra sessilis, and sources this to Moore (1842).

Both facts are relevant to the article. Both facts are intimately related to each other. It makes sense to present this as "Abbott says... but Moore says...."; but there a danger, as we're all aware, of making a novel synthesis: putting these two facts together and implying a conclusion that neither source supports. My concern was that the "Abbott says... but Moore says...." sentence can be read as "Abbott says... but Abbott is wrong." I spent ages wording and rewording to try to avoid any hint that we are laying blame for the contradiction. In the end I decided to cut the Gordian knot by more or less explitly stating that we aren't taking a position. That is what the "It is unclear... " sentence does. No, there is no source for it. If it has to go, it has to go, but I still say that in its absense the paragraph will read as though we are faulting Abbott. Hesperian 00:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could say: "However, Abbott mistakingly sources..." and leave the last bit off. A slightly shorter synthesis...--Grahame (talk) 00:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume there are no other reliable sources which discuss the issue?

I think Hesperian's reasoning is sound, and the article as it stands appears to deal with the issue fairly (Grahamec's rewording does not, for the reasons Hesperian gave). I feel it's counterproductive to insist on WP:NOR here, so I won't do it, but if you take this to FAC (don't know whether you're planning to), others may find fault with it. Ucucha 00:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this article is likely to go to FAC - I feel the sentence is necessary to state the relative positions and curent level of uncertainty. By removing it, it misleads the reader into believing Abbott has continued the error when we are not sure that this is infact the case. Thus the sentence can be seen in some way as an OR-avoiding measure. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]