Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hickman's potentilla/archive1

Hickman's potentilla[edit]

Newish, but already well-formed. If not FA quality, shouldn't take much to turn around any problems. At least deserves GA status. SP-KP 17:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak object, however I'm not a botanist :P What is the better name: the current or Hickman's cinquefoil? --Brand спойт 19:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain why you object? Googletest - Potentilla 164 v Cinquefoil 159, so ... !! SP-KP 21:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Also could article be expanded a bit or there is all possible info? --Brand спойт 21:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

literature uses primarily Hickman's potentilla, especially the EPA publication in the federal register. google also returns more hits for potentilla vs cinquefoil. article has now been expanded about 70 percent since this comment above Covalent 05:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak object. Article has a good basis, but, agree, short. Bobolot 00:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

article has now been expanded about 70 percent since the above comment. Covalent 05:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Article possibly could be expanded, but information is limited upon such a rare plant with severely restricted spatial occurence. The other risk is that much of the information (which i possess) that would expand the article relates to specifics of colony location, which is not necessarily great to advertise. Covalent 20:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the Wikipedia policy that statements need to be sourced. If the information on colony location is published already, it's already available to anyone wanting to find it, so adding it here is not such a big deal. If it's not already published, it shouldn't be included here. I therefore don't think we have too big an issue with this. SP-KP 20:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

its published, but good luck finding all of it !! Covalent 21:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice, and re: Brandemeister, given the rarity of this plant, a lengthy article is likely impossible and not necessary. Re: Bobolot, the author can't work on a non-specific objection. Rlevse 00:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)...PS article was inconsistent in having ending sentence ref before or after the period, so I fixed them, they should be after the period. Rlevse 00:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I didnt want to support it until i exhausted all the literature i could come by. ive now expanded it by about 60% over its content when nominated. wikipedia could use at least one featured article on a plant (other than saffron which was really a culinary masterpiece). Covalent 03:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although the copyright info on the lead image seems a bit shaky. If at all possible I'd like to see some California Wikipedian who lives nearby the region they still live to drive out and take a nice GFDL pic just to keep things simple. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object Lead is inadequate, it should at least mention something about its conservation status. The conservation status is full of stubby/short paragraphs. Article needs a copyedit since it does not represent our best work yet. Sentences such as "Discovery of P. hickmansii was made in the year 1900 by Alice Eastwood, the Curator of Botany at the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco. That year she made one of several excursions to Monterey County to collect specimens of rare plants, and she named this species after J. B. Hickman, who was her guide on that collecting trip." need some work to be considered of featured status quality. See also should go before notes or references per WP:GTL. Also is this article comprehenive on the topic? Joelito (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- very constructive comments. at this point there are no more red links, the see also section has been moved per your comment, a new image has been added and considerable copy editing has been carried out, especially a total rewrite of the section you flagged Covalent 05:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the redlinks should be dealt with too, even if only by creating stubs/redirects. I still support FA status, however. SP-KP 17:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - copyright information on the main pic is not just shakey, it's wrong. The photographer actually allowed the image to be used non-commercially and to be be able to keep track of any usage, obviously incompatible with the "the copyright holder has irrevocably released all rights to it, allowing it to be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used, modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited in any way by anyone for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, with or without attribution of the author, as if in the public domain" tag. Without that picture there's no photo of the actual subject of the article at all. I think it all depends on whether the photographer can be persuaded to be a bit more liberal with their rights-releasing. TheGrappler 19:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIt explicitly says usage on Wiki is okay, so a tag change should suffice here.Rlevse 00:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objection continued - if you change it to the "wikipedia use only" tag, then it will be deleted. The whole point of that tag is to identify images for deletion. "Wikipedia use only" is completely unacceptable. The image has to be either free for anyone (including commercial providers) or claimed under fair use; "permission for use on Wikipedia only" isn't good enough. Have a look at WP:COPYREQ for what needs to happen here for this image to be suitable. TheGrappler 16:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object—2a. Here are examples of why the whole article needs a good copy-edit, preferably by someone who's unfamiliar with the text.
- " United States federally listed"—ouch, that's cumbersome, right at the top.
- "a narrowly restricted range"—are both epithets required? Is "very" required later in that sentence? "Sharply delimited" is a bit odd here. Should "and" be inserted before "secondarily"? (It's A, and B.)
- "the spring"—I'm always looking for words to remove: "the"?
- So a plant "receives support for its survival from the U.S. Government"? It's a funny way of putting it. Same for the notion that a classification is a principal mechanism for protecting it. Surely it's the mechanisms that arise from that classsification that protect it ...

Venturing into the first section:

- "prostrate to decumbent, of variable length five to forty five centimeters"—I think most readers won't have a clue what the first phrase means, even though "decumbent" is linked. Insert "from" before "prostrate" and it's a little easier, but perhaps rethink? "Of" is required after "length", isn't it? Consider using numerals in this context, even though they're small numbers, with en dashes; e.g., "5–45". There are so many ranges expressed here.
- "in width"—why not just "wide"?

Please massage the entire text; then it will be a worthy FA. Tony 09:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]