Talk:Banksia aculeata

Banksia aculeata is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 13, 2018.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 4, 2016	Good article nominee	Listed
December 22, 2016	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Banksia: Plants Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Banksia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the plant genus Banksia and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.BanksiaWikipedia:WikiProject BanksiaTemplate:WikiProject BanksiaBanksia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Plants (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia: Western Australia / Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Banksia aculeata is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Banksia aculeata/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 23:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll review this article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bit scant on images, perhaps this one[1] could be added somewhere?

Yeah...actually I'll have a dig around on my hard drive and see if I can find some more Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue I find with the article is that there are many uncommon terms that are not explained. The links of course help, but as with other technical articles, I think explaining in parenthesis would be helpful for the layreader...
"Banksia aculeata grows as a bushy shrub" I'm not sure what this means?

Have reworded that, does that help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"lacking a lignotuber." Explain?

expanded. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"the inflorescences are" Explain?

expanded. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The infructescence" Likewise?

expanded. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Oval in shape, the follicles are wrinkled in texture and covered with fine hair, they are 3–4.5 cm" Seems a bit odd, perhaps "and they are"?

Oops, I split to avoid run on 'and'. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The obovate seed" Explain?

2D egg-shaped. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"is composed of the wedge-shaped seed body proper" Not sure what this means?

removed 'proper'. There is the seed body (containing the fertile bit) and a membranous wing. Added that it contains embryonic plant..does that help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"cotyledons which" Explain?

expanded like this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"and perianths" Explain?

expanded. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Like many plants in south-west Western Australia" I think this location should be mentioned much earlier, either under taxonomy or habitat.

rejigged. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"shorter pistils" Explain?

tweaked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"It is killed by fire" Perhaps say "this species" or its name, since the preceding sentence is a description of two general types.

tweaked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"but in a recent study the pathogen" This pathogen?

tweaked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Although it was collected by James Drummond, Banksia aculeata was not formally described until 1981" Perhaps mention the date in the intro, otherwise the significance of the rest of the sentence will be lost on those who don't know when Drummond lived.

Ok, I tried this before changing to this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"soil-borne water mould" Only described as such in intro.

added to body Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though you haven't commented after all points here, it seems you have addressed all in the article itself? FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't rejigged the pistils or perianths yet, and got sidetracked as I have to get a vine to grow on a fence...so was looking at and editing some articles....hang on.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update - have tried to expand all - let me know what is still tricky. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. Did you find some more photos in your archives? FunkMonk (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded this one - it is aculeata BUT the follicles should have a more wrinkly surface..so we were both puzzled....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A banksia cone with huge follicles. Keys out to Banksia aculeata BUT follicles aren't wrinkly but smooth.

Ah, ok, if it's iffy, never mind. If there are no more remarks, I'm ready to pass. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok great/thanks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comments from Sainsf: Another hit by Cas Liber. Would like to point out a few things. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 06:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, is not the line It generally grows as a dense shrub up to 2 m (7 ft) tall, has leaves with very prickly serrated margins, and unusual pinkish, pendent (hanging) inflorescences; generally hidden in the foliage, these appear during the early summer rather too long? Could be split?

yes, split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think reseeders and resprouters should be in double quotes rather than italics.

See, looking at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Italic_type and scrolling down to words as words section, I've been following that and using italics. I'd use quote marks if a sentence or phrase Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However both the new foliage and the infructescence are considered attractive May smell of original research.

good point - these points were made by George, so I have clarified attribution to him. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ref. nos. 6 and 8 need not have URLs if they already have DOIs and/or PMIDs.

I did muse on that, but they both link to fulltexts, which are valuable to find... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Yes, this is ready to be a GA now. You and FunkMonk have done a great job. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk Is the article a GA yet? You said yesterday that it is ready to pass. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks for further comments, will pass now! FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]