Talk:Banksia cuneata/Archive 1

Thanks Cas. I was a little embarrassed about the quality of prose. But at the rate I was fiddling on the talk page it would have taken forever for me to clean it up. So I decided to sent it live in the hope that someone would come along and do my dirty work for me. Lo and behold, it took you four minutes to turn up! :-) Hesperian 13:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah...funny how sometimes they just start to fall into place - a coupla days ago I wasn't sure which one'd be next cab off the rank. Now this one is melding nicely and will be fantastic when Gnangarra gets some snaps :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Probably worth sticking up at WP:GAN now-ish. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go over it this weekend. Hesperian 02:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget, it will also likely stay there for a few weeks, so there is ample time. Like with prionotes, a good thorough systematic review can be really helpful and I find is the rule rather than the exception these days...Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. "Now-ish" is fine with me. Hesperian 04:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done now - we can continue tweaking at leisure as there is a backlog anyways. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs

seed pods
a typical matchstick presentation
lateral branch
full plant appoxiamately 3 meters high
presentation of flowers on the one plant shoing the colour range as the flowers mature

All taken in the same location as the type specimen :) Gnan garra 12:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that looks like it's in the middle of nowhere. An interesting cross section of photos, nice work! --Melburnian (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Hesperian 12:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wouldnt call it the middle of nowhere, it was only a 400km round trip but suffice to say that the kinder probably dont want to see the backseat of the car for the rest of school holidays :), besides I now have to spend a few more hours trawling flora base to identify the other plants I photographed Gnan garra 13:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you need any help with the ID, just give me a yell. Melburnian (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Overall, the article is quote good. Here is how it stacks up against the six GA criteria:

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
There were a couple of minor spelling/grammatical issues, but those were easier to simply fix than comment about. It might be good to give it another good, final copyedit, in case I missed anything. But otherwise, it's quite easy to read.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It's overall well cited using reliable sources. However, the WP:OR/citations issue is a bit ambiguous in the first paragraph under 'Infrageneric placement'. It seems to be referring to a '1996 cladistic analysis', but there's no citation for that (unless that citation is somewhere else that I couldn't find?). Please clarify this by adding a citation..
Fixed. How odd; that is a key publication. I wonder how we managed to miss it. Hesperian 01:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article seems to cover the major aspects of the topic. There's a couple of minor issues that could be done a little bit better. First, I'd recommend changing 'ecology' to 'reproduction', as the section seems to cover the reproduction and flowering more than the ecological aspects. Secondly, in the 'conservation' section, the first major subsection refers to an 'extensive land clearing of the 1930s'. I'm assuming that this is a specific event, though the link to land clearing is red (non-existent). I would think that a generic article on "land clearing" is really unnecessary, as it would probably result in an article that's quickly orphaned and forgotten. But a specific article on a Western Australia Land Clearing event might be notable, so maybe change the link. Even so, in the absence of an article on this event, perhaps just expand the section to provide more details on this land clearing event? Third, the lead section is overall good, but could use a bit more summary of the conservation aspects mentioned.
Regarding "ecology" v "reproduction", I'm going to have to disagree with that one. Reproduction is an aspect of ecology, and this is especially true when one takes into acount pollination vectors, serotiny, seed granivory, moisture stress on seedlings, and so on. I really think "ecology" is the most appropriate section heading here. Hesperian 01:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that that is wrong. Ecology != reproduction. Ecology is defined as how an organism interacts in its environment. Reproduction deals specifically with how an organism reproduces (meiosis, mitosis, sexual/asexual, flowering, live birth, lays eggs, etc). Ecology most certainly plays a role, but it's not the same thing. Dr. Cash (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do see that it is related. What about possibly renaming the section to something like 'Reproduction and Ecology'. Because the first part dealing with a description of the flower really has nothing to do with ecology, but the section does get more into how the ecology does impact the reproduction of the organism, so I can see how they're related. Dr. Cash (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We agree on the definition of ecology; this is a good thing, which, unfortunately, cannot be taken for granted on Wikipedia. Too many people have an extremely fuzzy understanding of the term, but don't know it.
Perhaps I should have said "Sexual reproduction is an aspect of ecology", since an organism must interact in order to reproduce sexually.
Reproduction is an aspect of life cycle, and aspects like seedling mortality fit better with "Life cycle and ecology" than with "Reproduction and ecology". Are you satisfied with the former? Hesperian 02:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm,... 'Life cycle and ecology' works. I like that! Dr. Cash (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "land clearing", this is associated with the opening up of the wheatbelt. Changed to "Even before the extensive clearing of the Wheatbelt in the 1930s...". Hesperian 01:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will work on the lead.... Hesperian
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The article meets the WP:NPOV criterion.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
The article is stable. There doesn't appear to be any edit warring.
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):
Images are of quite good quality, have suitable captions, and are tagged appropriately. However, if the organism is a shrub or small tree of 15 ft in height, perhaps an image of the overall organism should be added, instead of just pictures of the flowers? I won't hold up a GA over this, but moving forward, it would be nice to have.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Overall, the article is very close to meeting the six GA criteria. Once these issues are addressed, it can be listed. Dr. Cash (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks heaps for the review. Hesperian 01:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GA criteria have been met now. The article can be listed. Nice work. Dr. Cash (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The home stretch....

I saw a couple of other tweaks - Hesp, shall we ask someone to give it a once over or do you want to play with it first? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I want to do—and I can't believe I forgot it for this long—is to produce a distribution map! After that you can do whatever you want with it. Hesperian 13:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, you're right. Okay - I will ask Sasata and we'll wait for the map :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"These are a mottled grey colour, smooth, felted with short sort hairs" sort hairs? (oops, typo)
mention who Alex George is (yep)
"...and no infraspecific taxa have even been published." "infraspecific taxa" is pretty hardcore for the average reader
- Changed to "no subspecies or varieties have been published"—this discounts forms, but they are pretty rare. Hesperian 23:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"There is a park called 'Cuneata Park'" Not sure if single quote marks are correct/consistent usage (removed)
"A 1996 cladistic analysis of the genus by Kevin Thiele and Pauline Ladiges yields no information" yields -> yielded, no? and who are Kevin Thiele and Pauline Ladiges? And Mast and Thiele?
"Since 1998, Austin Mast has been publishing results of ongoing cladistic analyses of DNA sequence data for the subtribe Banksiinae." where does the subtribe fit into the infrageneric summary directly above? (parent of banksia and dryandra)
I think the Infrageneric placement section needs a bit of work to make it more accessible. Examples of stuff that would be very confusing if I didn't know what it meant already:

" B. cuneata resolves as sister to a clade" (noted it equals next closest taxon)

"but the clade appears fairly derived" (I have added 'well-nested among other species' but heve left in parentheses, maybe can be rephrased better (?))

"An endangered species, the Matchstick Banksia" the common name was uncapitalized previously
- Changed mentions of common name to consistent capitalisation; and converted use of common name to scientific name. Hesperian 00:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/expand stubby 1st paragraph in "Life cycle and ecology" (done)
"though whether it results in successful fruit set is another matter." "a successful fruit set" or "fruit sets" (to me this sounds fine as is, 'set' is a group/abstract noun (?))
the term "outcrossing rates" will need a definition or explanation. How is "disturbed population" defined? (I changed 'undisturbed populations' to 'populations in relatively intact bushland' and see following. The crux is the damage or removal of components in the bushland itself. i.e. the plants which form the understorey)
"resulting in more genetic structure" ? unclear what is meant by more genetic structure
"instead they must rely for pollination upon occasional visitors" -> "...rely on occasional visitors for pollination" sounds better I think (yes and done)
"This species produces an unusually high number of cones per plant" What's a cone? It not mentioned in the description (explained)
1st para of conservation needs a source
" The Banksia Atlas survey found one population to be on a road verge" haven't heard the expression road verge before, it is the Aussie equivalent of "standing at the crossroads"?
- It is what you call a tree lawn or nature strip or roadside. Changed to "side of a road". Hesperian 23:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A large part of the surviving populations are on private land, and depend on good relationships with local landowners." unclear what depends on the good relationships
fencing and baiting rabbits are mentioned in this section, but its not stated explicitly anywhere what the rabbits would do if they had the chance
It is unclear to me why an emphemeral salt river would be a barrier to genetic exchange between populations of Banskia. Why can't pollinating birds fly over the river?
- That's because you don't understand our inland river systems: Salt River is not so much a river as a long thin floodplain: a ten-kilometre wide boggy chain of salt lakes. I'll have a think about how to make this clearer. Hesperian 23:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
still needs a thorough copyedit to fix tiny details, like commas after "However" and stuff like that. I'll give it another go before your FAC if you'd like
Pictures - more please! Really needs one of the whole tree. Something in the lifestyle and ecology section would also be nice to break up the long section of text. Maybe one of the pollinator birds?

I have been trying to place images next to corresponding text. I want to get the one in early bud in but damned if i can figure out where to put it. I have just put the one of some terminal inflorescences in. It occurred to me that it would be good to mention that bird-attracting flowers are often showy and terminal and this would be good to mention (and ref) in the caption. Just need a ref for it...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]