Jump to content

Talk:Amaranthus brownii/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems well researched and referenced and the topic is fairly interesting, but it needs some further polishing before it is ready for GA status. J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I have seven days to fix and address these issues? Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've got as long as you need. J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second read through

[edit]

Ok, I'm taking another look through now. J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "monoecious and the male and female flowers are found together on the same plant." Is this not redundant? Perhaps something like- "monoecious; that is, the male and female flowers are found together on the same plant."
  • The description section feels a little short. I think I'm willing to let it pass at GAC, but if you can find any further information... Surely the original description would have a lot of description?
    • The original description was written in Latin in Christophersen & Caum (1931). However more recent publications, like Wagner et al. (1999), seem to have updated the description. They do seem to differ, but here is Beacham's (2000) as one example, presumably relying on Wager et al. (1990 or 1999 rev. ed.):

leafy upright or ascending stems that are 1-3 ft (0.3-0.9 m) long. The alternate leaves, 1.6-2.8 in (4-7 cm) long and 0.06-0.16 in (0.1-0.14 cm) wide, are long, narrow, slightly hairy, and more or less folded in half lengthwise. Flowers are either male or female, and flowers of both sexes are found on the same plant. The green flowers are subtended by two oval, bristle-tipped bracts about 0.04 in (1 mm) long and 0.03 in (0.7 mm) wide. Each flower has three bristle-tipped sepals. These are lance-shaped and 0.05 in (1 mm) long by 0.03 in (0.7 mm) wide in male flowers. Female flowers have spatula-shaped sepals that are about 0.03 in (0.7 mm) long by 0.01 in (0.2 mm) wide. Male flowers have three stamens; female flowers have two stigmas. The flattened oval fruit, approximately 0.03 in (0.7 mm) long and 0.02 in (0.5 mm) wide, does not split open at maturity to reveal its one lens-shaped, reddish black seed. This species can be distinguished from other Hawaiian members of the genus by its spineless leaf axils, its linear leaves, and the aforementioned fruit that does not split open at maturity.

Here is Wagner:

:Plants monoecious; stems erect or ascending, densely leafy, 3-10 dm long, conspicuously striate. Leaves linear, somewhat conduplicate, 4-7 cm long, 1.5-4 mm wide, most of the surface sparsely puberulent, usually more densely so toward base, the hairs multicellular, gradually tapering to a petiole, 5-13 mm long. Flowers green, bracts ovate, ca. 1 mm long, 0.7 mm wide, apex aristate; sepals 3, dimorphic, those of the staminate flowers lanceolate, 1.3 mm long, 0.8 mm wide, apex aristate, those of the pistillate flowers spatulate, 0.8-1 mm long, 0.2-0.5 mm wide, apex aristate; stamens 3; stigmas 2. Fruit ovoid, compressed, 0.8-1 mm long, 0.6-0.8 mm wide, indehiscent, the surface rugose, the apex with a short ring surrounding the stigmas. Seeds reddish black, shiny, lenticular. [2n = 34*.] Rare on Nihoa, 120-215m...

  • I'd personally put taxonomy before description, but I'm not gonna make you do that.
  • There's some inconsistency of the capitalisation of common names- "Goat's foot", "lovegrass", the foreign names, etc
  • Again, I'm not wild on the spacing to keep pictures in the sections they're placed in, but this is not something I'm going to demand is changed.
  • "A. brownii was originally proposed for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act on June 16, 1976, but was withdrawn on December 10, 1979 as out of date and incomplete." This doesn't make sense. How can a plan be "out of date and incomplete"? Presumably the listing or application was withdrawn?
  • "Sesbania tomentosa (ʻohai)" I think the reason this confused me is that throughout the rest of the article, it has been "Common Name (Specificus nameus)" and this bucks the trend.

This is a very good article. In style, it is a little different from a lot of similar articles I have reviewed/worked on; however, as this article shows, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Are you interested in taking this to FAC? With a stronger description section, this would have a shot. It's well written and researched, and the fact the subject is an interesting one is always helpful! J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am now happy to promote. The blockquotes you've posted above suggest that there are a couple of details left that can be fit into the description section; if you are interested in FAC (and it couldn't hurt to try!) you'll want to pad that out as far as possible. If you do decide to take it further, you may be best off consulting someone who's bigger on plants- fungi are my area within biology. Talking to Casliber (talk · contribs) may not be a bad idea- he's a botanist with plenty of experience at FAC. If you do nominate it at FAC, peer review or just want another look through, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I suppose it's worth mentioning that you should comb the further reading to see if there is anything of use there. I mentioned earlier that the taxonomy section doesn't have much on its evolutionary relationship with other members of the genus- some of the sources look like they may have some information in. J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amaranthus_brownii/GA1&oldid=1248597916"