Talk:Banksia sphaerocarpa/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Guettarda (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be doing the review. I will have some comments up soon. Guettarda (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took so long. Guettarda (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Para 2: "has had" is a little redundant

"broadly circumscribed" is a bit too technical - it should be restated in simpler English. (Even as simple a change as "broadly defined" would improve readability, albeit, perhaps, at the cost of precision)

Last sentence: the "but" shouldn't be there after the semi-colon

done up to here Hesperian 06:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Description: The article jumps into a discussion of subspecies and varieties with little prior explanation. To begin with, there's a bit of conflict between the statement in the second para of the lead that it's divided into 5 varieties with talk of subspecies in the description. (Just noticed that the lead also speaks of "none of the subspecies", after saying it's divided into 5 vars) But more than that, the article jumps into a discussion of "subspecies caesia" without introducing the subspecies. It's a little abrupt. I would also like to see a few words explaining what a lignotuber is. It's not common knowledge, even for this botanist.

(tried to jig it a bit and add note on lignotuber) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence of that para says 'they are orange or brownish in colour' - I presume you mean the flowers, but right now, strictly speaking it either means the plants or the inflorescence.

(fixed) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy: Second para - The sentence on types and lectotypes is unlikely to be accessible to the average reader. If you briefly explained the role of a type collection - something like "the specimen thought to best exemplify the species", and use that to explain lectotypification - it might help with accessibility.

(tried adding some brief explanatory notes) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third para - "phyletic order" is a tad jargony. It would be nice to explain it a little, in the sentence. (While I could guess at what it meant, I can't say I really knew "phyletic order", and it strikes me as a bit old-fashioned.) "Infrageneric" is another word that might be puzzling.

(converted to "taxonomic sequence, that is the believed order of development of individual species" - how's that?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear what's meant by "than the removal of one distinctive species into a subgenus of its own"

(Just that brown didn't subdivide banksia into any subgenera, apart from moving ilicifolia into one. I guess it is one of those conundrums over how much context to give (i.e. is it too much) ) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subgenus, subspecies, variety, section, series, should all be wikilinked, as should spike should also be linked (to raceme), head (to Head (botany)) and synonymy (to Synonym (taxonomy)).

(all done - some of the destination articles need work (groan)) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth para - second sentence - "and Bentham also published" creates the impression that is separate from the two varieties. Something more like "together with a new variety, latifolia", perhaps together with the clarification "which Bentham published" or "which was published by Bentham".

(I tried "newly published by Bentham) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third sentence: who reinstated the var. in 2008? (Alex George as well?)

(yes. clarified) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth sentence: "Bentham noted...noting..."

(noting --> stating) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth para: "Circumspection" is a big, somewhat jargony word.

(has it gone now? can't find it with cntrl-F...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second sentence - if you've already described them as "varieties", do you need to repeat "var."?

(good point. Had to think about this one, I think that as niether are now current varieties, it does help to show they were considered varieties at this stage, although ungainly looking.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did Lullfitz predict 8 taxa, or eight species? (A variety is, after all, a taxon.)

(he said 8 forms in the original as far as I can tell (i.e. not distinguishing between species and subspecies), thus my reason for using "taxa" - I guess I could just use "forms" for accessability) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third sentence: rather then include the full name of George's monograph, why not just link the phrase [[The genus Banksia L.f. (Proteaceae)|George's revision of the genus]] (or, better IMO, "George's 1981 revision of the genus").

The part of the sentence: "B. leptophylla (classified informally as B. sphaerocarpa var. pinifolia or var. major)" is a bit unclear. Why not convert the bit in brackets to a footnote, which would allow more elaboration and not break up what is already an awfully long sentence.

(Hmmm, never thought of that as I have not used notes like that previously. Okay, youve convinced me. Done.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did George replace subgenus Eubanksia with subgenus Banksia?

(see para 4 of Banksia sect. Eubanksia. Question is, how much to note in this article?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Para 6: "As with George's classification, Banksia grossa and Banksia micrantha were close relatives." - should that be sphaerocarpa, not grossa?

(meant to be Banksia sphaerocarpa subject here, not latifolia) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Para 7: what's a "shouldered follicle"?

(this was/is tricky, and I'd be interested in another way of describing. Essentially, if one were to cut the follicle transversely, one would notice that the face of the follicle was flattish on either side of the opening, but then drops away, a bit like a continental shelf or coat in silhouette. Does that make it easier to understand?)

What's the "Ironcap banksia"? Not quite clear.

(dolichostyla - noted now)

Para 9 - who's Mast? (i.e., shouldn't his first name be included here?) And why just him and not Tom Givnish? Also: "molecular study" and "molecular analysis"; one or the other can lose the qualifier.

(done, done, and done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Varieties: Shouldn't start a section with "it".

(done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I must have missed something in the taxonomy section, but why is var. dolichostyla included in the species if B. micrantha isn't?

(ahaaa. dolichostyla's inclusion is not held by all, and George disputes the cladistic findings) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B. sphaerocarpa var. latifolia, - too long; break this up into more than one sentence (or get rid of the "grows...where it grows" wording).

(split and de-grown) Casliber (talk · contribs)

B. sphaerocarpa var. sphaerocarpa - "nominate subspecies" is a tad jargony.

(ok, removed) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation: is there an article that describes the Australian conservation ranking? A link to that would be nice here. And if not, why not? Get to work! :)

(I've not looked - the main governance is Western Australian, not national. Added a bit, and to the lead) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology: "Birds and insects...", but then the section goes on to mention a mammal, the honey possum.

(changed line to "Various animals, including mammals, birds, and insects....") Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cultivation: second para lacks sources. Also the last two paras are only one sentence long - could be combined.

(reffed and done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Sorry to ask so much. How about adding a word or two about its conservation status to the lead? Guettarda (talk) 14:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Guettarda (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]