Jump to content

Talk:Betula pendula/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: 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Betula_pendula/GA1&oldid=633602400"