Talk:Betula pendula

Betula pendula has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 12, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Grand National

Silver Birch was also the name of this year's winner of the Grand National Steeplechase at Aintree. There's a page devoted to the horse but no way of getting there directly through the Search facility. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.128.92.101 (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Distribution

Was it actually introduced to North America or is there only the Paper Birch (and others?) over there? -- maxrspct ping me 23:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Height record

I edited heigth information: "exceptionally up to 39 m". This is the heigth record in Finland. Also from finnish Wikipedia (http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rauduskoivu): "The tallest specimens measured in Finland have been almost 40 m tall". Krasanen (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MeegsC (talk · contribs) 22:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I'll be reviewing this article. MeegsC (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking on the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Description

The bark on the trunk and branches is golden-brown at first but later turns white as papery tissue develops on the surface which peels off in flakes. I read this as "later turns white as papery tissue" the first time I started through the sentence, then had to go back and start again. Perhaps add a comma after "white"? Either that or restructure sentence.
The bark remains smooth until the tree gets quite large, but in older trees, the bark thickens, becomes irregular, dark and rugged. This reads strangely; I'd suggest replacing "becomes" with "becoming".
Link resin and shoots, define "pendulous" (linking to wikidictionary would be fine).
The sentence describing male and female catkins needs clarifying. Both must be present at the same time of year, or no flowers would ever be pollinated!
The leaves have short slender stalks and are 3 to 7 cm (1.2 to 2.8 in) long, triangular with broad, entire, wedge-shaped bases, slender pointed tips and coarsely double-toothed serrated margins. What does "entire" mean here?
The small 1-2mm winged seeds ripen in late summer... En-dash between 1 and 2.
The male catkins expand and release pollen and the female catkins mature in mid-summer and wind-pollination takes place. Consider reversing the order of male and female, if female flowers mature first. Also, there should be no dash in "wind pollination".
The small 1-2mm winged seeds ripen in late summer on pendulous, cylindrical catkins 2 to 4 cm (0.8 to 1.6 in) long and 7 mm broad. Convert 7mm. MeegsC (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have dealt with these suggestions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these updates look good. Catkins, I think, are still problematic. According to one text I checked, the male catkins develop in the fall and remain on the tree over the winter (opening in the spring) while the female catkins develop in the spring. Do your texts show something similar? This at least explains how the tree can be pollinated. Right now, it's not at all clear. MeegsC (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what happens. I have rephrased the sentence concerned. Better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution and habitat

Any chance of a map?

There does not seem to be one on Commons. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the description of the species range, there's no mention of China or Mongolia, though both are listed in the linked reference. In the lead, the article mentions only "southwest Asia".
There is also an occurrence in northern Morocco. This makes it sound like a single occurrence/tree. The linked reference says it's native in northern Morocco.

I would have responded earlier had I been aware that you had started your review. I have rephrased the bits of the article about distribution. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm in the field at the moment, and have only sporadic connections. Will continue soon! MeegsC (talk) 03:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No rush. I am without my computer after a thunderstorm and will be more able to respond better in a few days time. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology

In the list of plants, there are species indicated (using scientific names) but some of the wikilinked articles are to genus level articles instead. Why the mix? Shouldn't they all be to species articles?
In the plant list, species should either be listed as singular or plural — not a mix of both.
In the list of birds, some wikilink to species articles, and some to genus articles — and one (woodpeckers) leads to the article about the family as a whole. Surely that can't be correct! If multiple woodpeckers are found there, then it should at least say woodpeckers!
"Nutrient-poor" might need a dash. I don't have a grammar book to hand, but it looks wrong!
It might be better to say the larvae of a large number of species of insects feeds on silver birch (rather than just a large number of insects).

Cultivation

There is no reference for most of the cultivars section.

General

Should be "silver birch"; there are several "Silver Birch" references, particularly toward the end of the article.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A number of references (including 1, 3, 8, 9 and 19) need page numbers.

Done, I replaced #1 and #3 so now the numbers of the references are different. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 15 is in a rather different format than other journals; should be the same as the others.

Changed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What makes "botanical online" a reliable source?

Do you think Plants for a future is better? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely! At least it has references that can be followed up on. Good find!

Replaced. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like reference 2 has moved. I'm getting a 404 error.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can the "chemistry" and "cultural significance" sections be included elsewhere? Such tiny sections aren't ideal. Not a deal-breaker though.

MeegsC (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ecology and cultivation sections detailed above are still waiting! Otherwise, it's looking good. MeegsC (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are now done. Sorry for the delay, I had not realised there were any outstanding issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Cwmhiraeth, just checked the references, and there's a couple of additional things:

The web references between 18 and 27 should have the publisher field filled — i.e. who's information are we using as our source?
Reference 18 goes to a landing page for the journal; there's nothing there that includes the information you've cited.

Once those are done, I'm happy to give this a GA! MeegsC (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 18 is properly cited now and I think the others are all done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this. It is a much better article as a result of your comments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! It's a nice article, and I learned a lot about silver birches. :) MeegsC (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Betula pendula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170525105020/http://www.forest.go.kr/kna/special/download/English_Names_for_Korean_Native_Plants.pdf to http://www.forest.go.kr/kna/special/download/English_Names_for_Korean_Native_Plants.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most common tree in Britain

I have heard it said that the silver birch is the most common tree in Great Britain. If this information is accurate, it could be added to the article. Vorbee (talk) 08:45, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]