Talk:Banksia ilicifolia/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, this looks great. More detailed comments to follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Appearing from late winter to early summer, the inflorescences are dome-shaped flower heads rather than spikes as many other banksias. They arise from stems that are around a year old, with no lateral branchlets growing on from the flower head base." This isn't as clear as it could be.
- tried rewording. Clearer? Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The name Banksia aquifolium was published in 1814 and reduced to synonymy.[1]" It's not clear what that line is doing there, considering you discuss it in the next paragraph? It's also not clear where the name "Sirmuellera ilicifolia" fits in.
- ~~rejigging now~~. There was another publication of a name which I can't find now. Odd bit removed and sirmuellera added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Because of its dome-shaped flower heads, the Holly-leaved Banksia is placed in the subgenus Banksia subg. Isostylis.[5] It is the only common member of that subgenus; the two other species are rare and threatened,[6] and are protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999." Would this information not belong in the subsection on the infrageneric placement?
- agree/moved Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There also seems to be a lot of crossover between the infrageneric placement subsection and the phylogeny subsection.
- agree - I've merged them and am in the process of rejigging... Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"(‘community type 22’)" ?
- just the name given by the WA government to one of the communities - can't find anything else about it under that name Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"seasonally inundated" With what?
- with water, might change that to "waterlogged" Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"include M. preissiana," Shouldn't this be the common name for consistency?
- it is mentioned and linked in the preceding paragraph Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"a beetle of the species Liparetrus," Genus?
- d'oh! fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ecology section could probably do with a little more wikification- there are a few unlinked technical terms.
- linked a few Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't explicitly mention in the cultivation section that it is not often used.
- added Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check the formatting of notes 9, 17
- got 'em Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What precisely is the document note 18 references?
- whoops, left out the url - added now. cites previous two sentences. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On note 33, could we have all the authors?
- done Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that this will be going to FAC, so a few pieces that could be adjusted before it's nominated-

The lead feels a tad short.
"and variously obovate (egg-shaped), elliptic, truncate or undulate in shape, and 3–10 cm (1–4 in) long. The leaf edges are generally serrated with broad v- to u-shaped sinuses" A little technical
I feel that the article is missing a close-up picture of the leaves, which are clearly characteristic
- Damn....I am a bit far, but can ask gnangarra or hesperian to pop outside somewhere and take a snap. I guess the best candidates otherwise are File:Buisson de fleurs blanches.jpg, File:Banksia inilicifolia 01 gnangarra.jpg or File:Banksia ilicifolia2 orig.JPG of what we have already. Might see what I've got on an old drive....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally very strong. I made a few small edits. J Milburn (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- your edits are ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking again, I'm happy that this is ready for GA status. I do hope you push for FA- my notes above will hopefully be helpful there, and I do feel you should look again at the M. preissiana point above. However, these are niggles, and certainly will not stop this from being a strong GA. Good job! J Milburn (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - yeah, I'll work on the lead and the other points and get it to FAC soon - thanks for the review and pointers....:) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]