Talk:Xerochrysum bracteatum/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Choess (talk · contribs) 02:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Underway. Should be done pretty soon, but I need a little time to organize my notes. Choess (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Overall, looks pretty sound. Some niggling points of prose I'm working up in detail. Sound sources. Well illustrated.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
See below
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
See below
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Balance is good; nice combination of botany/ecology and horticulture.
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:

Criterion 1a (prose)

Some points occuring throughout: You use X. bracteatum once in the taxonomy section, and after that, the genus is always written out. Should it be abbreviated when it occurs more than once in each section, or not at all? In several of the cultivar descriptions, the color of the "centre" of the flower is described. I think it would be better to sue the word "disc," since that is the terminology that's been used in the taxonomy section. A few time, the word "strike" is used, apparently (from context) meaning to take root and grow. IMO, that's horticultural jargon and should at least be glossed at the first occurrence. There are several references to a "range" of colors, or using the terminology "from...to". Perhaps I'm being overly pedantic, but I'm slightly bothered that this ranging doesn't seem to correspond to the color spectrum. I think it might be best to clarify that these ranges are from the natural yellow color out to the extremes of purple, bronze, etc.

what I've done is left binomial unabbreviated at the beginning of a paragraph, and abbreviated elsewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
centres discified now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked in Cutting (plant) to "Cuttings" in "cuttings strike..", though could be argued to link to second or even both words. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've "de-ranged" a bit - good point/am starting to write like a gardening magazine... Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: The lead switches from singular, "is a plant" to plural "The grow" in the next sentence. Clarify "distinctive feature"--what do the bracts distinguish them from? "Propagated and developed"--developed into what? Would another word be more appropriate? "Many" is used too much at the end; find synonyms.

singularised. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy: Is there an etymology of Xerochrysum ("dry gold?")--I didn't see one at the genus article. It looks as though the ANPSA gives a possible derivation. Do we know when Andrews reclassified it? Can we say "not closely related" instead of "quite removed"? In "Strawflower is the popular name..." we have the singular/plural conflict again, as in the lead. "Future revisions" of what? Say taxonomy explicitly.

got 'em all Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Description: "and *from* 0.5 to 2 cm..." "are occasionally multiple" Does this mean more than 1 flower head per stem? "Like all Asteraceae, they..." Is it really correct to say that the flowers are Asteraceae? Perhaps "Like all flowers of Asteraceae?" Instead of "florets, which sit," I might say "florets; these sit" to break up the chain of "which" but that's purely a matter of taste. "Creating a shiny and yellow corolla impression" is very obscure. Perhaps this should be a separate sentence: "The shiny, yellow bracts give the impression of a corolla around the disc." "have a longer one" longer pistil or longer corolla? "fused by the anthers" or "fused at the anthers"?

flower anatomy ain't my strong point....but rejigged now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution and habitat: Rearrange clauses: "to bouts of rainfall" should come before "to complete its lifecycle". (Or "by completing its lifecycle?")

done. that was silly - why didn't I see that before.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology: Change to "in 2006, in which the leaves" to eliminate an unnecessary semicolon. "pathogen was indistinguishable from *the agent of* aster yellows".

done x 2 Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cultivation: "sometime after their release" is vague; I assume they wouldn't lose popularity before their release. Change to "acid, well-aerated". In 'Dargan Hill Monarch', do we need to hear again that it flowers better if deadheaded? That's been presented as a characteristic of all cultivars. The first sentence describing the 'Cockatoo' cultivar is over-lengthy. Please break it in two. "hairs, which *give* them a grayish cast"-I'd prefer the verb to agree with "hairs" rather than "covered". In 'Golden Bowerbird', "denser-foliaged" feels clumsy to me as a participle. Perhaps "with denser foliage" instead? Is "received by" ACRA the same as "granted registration"? "Lacks the hair" or just "lacks hair"? In 'Hastings Gold', unit conversions are missing. In 'Strawburst Yellow', use "was sown" and "was chosen".

got 'em all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 1b (MoS)

Lead looks OK per MoS. The MoS suggests "Works cited" for the subsection in references, but I'm not sure that's mandatory. Otherwise, follows the WikiProject Plants template for section layout. Word choice seemed fine; "huge array of colours" veered a little towards being a peacock term, but I think it's acceptable as used.

yeah, I didn't see that. I like it and changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 2b (RS)

I have verified the existence of all sources and that they appear to be reliable with the following exceptions:

those in Australian Plants for which no link existed, as I could not find an index online. However, the journal appears to be reliable.
The link to the Lasioglossum reference doesn't work.

damn - the museum of victoria had this great crossindexed site for bees and plant species. the new website only does genera, so I've removed the sentence for now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Native bees recorded visiting the flowers include five species of halictid bee in the genus Lasioglossum (subgenus Chilalictus)—L. chapmani, L. eremaean, L. helichrysi, L. immaculatum and L. platychilum.^[1]

Spotcheck: 'Princess of Wales' does not lack hair; the hair is restricted to the leaf midrib, so it is substantially but not completely glabrous.

that'll teach me not to read more carefully....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does Rodger Elliot's surname have one or two "l"s? It is spelled inconsistently.

two els, and duly tweaked. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criterion 2c (OR)

To the extent I have been able to check sources, the article does not appear to contain original research or synthesis. Advice about propagation, deadheading, appearance of cultivars, etc. appears documented.

OK, review is hopefully complete. Seek a layman before/during FAC, as I have a somewhat higher tolerance for botanical technical terms than average. Choess (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ [1]

[1] [1]

[1]