Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Alloxylon flammeum

Alloxylon flammeum

This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

This is the archived discussion of the TFAR nomination for the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 22, 2014 by Bencherlite ^Talk 17:50, 10 March 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Alloxylon flammeum, commonly known as the Queensland tree waratah or red silky oak, is a medium-sized tree of the family Proteaceae found in the Queensland tropical rain forests. It has shiny green elliptical leaves up to 18 cm (7.2 in) long, and prominent orange-red inflorescences that appear from August to October, followed by rectangular woody seed pods that ripen in February and March. Juvenile plants have large (up to 25 cm (10 in) long) deeply lobed pinnate leaves. Previously known as Oreocallis wickhamii, the initial specimen turned out to be a different species to the one cultivated and hence a new scientific name was required. Described formally by Peter Weston and Mike Crisp in 1991, A. flammeum was designated the type species of the genus Alloxylon. Alloxylon flammeum is a canopy or emergent tree of the Mabi rainforest community of north Queensland. Its terminal tubular flowers indicate that the species is pollinated by birds. Readily adaptable to cultivation, Alloxylon flammeum prefers a site with good drainage. It is listed nationally as vulnerable under the Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) as most of its habitat has been cleared for agriculture and logging. (Full article...)

1 point for FA induction occurring 1+ years ago. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting - I didn't realize Queensland had tropical rain forests! Couple quick comments about the blurb. 1.) Would it look better if you used this picture instead of the picture of the full tree? The more colorful, close-cropped image of the flower might be more aesthetically pleasing and easy to see in thumbnail (though might mislead people into thinking the article is on a flower and not on a tree). 2.) Should probably remove the redlinks from those names, in the blurb at least. I find it strange that both are both redlinks and pipelinks. Why bother pipelinking to a non-existent article? Doesn't seem like either has been deleted or something. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 05:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-2 points - the next available slot at present is March 8, and the article scheduled for March 7 is Persoonia lanceolata, another Australian piece of vegetation, so it's overkill (and a 3-point penalty) to have them so close together. QatarStarsLeague, the blurb is too long, contains too much bold text, doesn't have a bold link to the article at the start of the blurb, has redlinks, and you haven't notified Casliber (the principal author). It would really help if you followed TFAR instructions when nominating an article and if you checked for previous similar articles first. Otherwise you just make work for other people. Thanks, Bencherlite ^Talk 10:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

completely self-aggrandizing support - forgot this hadn't been on main page and had I thought of it might have slotted it in first. Oh well, agree that a closeup shot would look better on main page. I have no problem with them being close (well, maybe not on consecutive days!) as we've gone for months at times without plant articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Before I did not see that there were any March entries. Otherwise, I would not have submitted this entry. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Let's eschew the points in favor of ... SCIENCE!!! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm not sure why we need points if we're having trouble getting nominations. --99of9 (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This point about points is a good point, 99of9, thanks for making this point using a bullet point, about points. :) — Cirt (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@99of9: - the issue of points, as far as I see it, seems to be relevant for aiding a decision when you have two equally good articles competing for the same date.--ColonelHenry (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but then we could just leave it off for the "non-specific date" section. --99of9 (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The points also come into play in determining diversity-related issues, regardless if we're talking about date- or non-date-specific requests. Imzadi 1979 → 03:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Imzadi said about points for non-specific dates. This will run, but not close to Persoonia lanceolata, otherwise (what with Aleeta curvicosta as well) it would look as though Aussie naturalists have taken over the main page! Bencherlite ^Talk 11:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now on diversity issue. At another time, consider this opinion moot. Imzadi 1979 → 03:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT - SCIENCE!!!! --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although, the blurb is presently at 225 words with 1,440 characters (including spaces)...it needs to cut about 240 characters or 30 to 40 words.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ColonelHenry is a hard man, and I trimmed per his demands. Support now, SCIENCE, though I'm not a dentist. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]