Talk:Cirsium greimleri

Greimler's thistle

Hi @Иованъ, I cannot find a mention of Cirsium greimleri having a common name of Greimler's thistle. Is that in a reference anywhere? Thanks, -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 01:54, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Also what is happening with the notes in this article?? -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 01:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The letters? Ellenberg indicator values also have letter abbreviations. Different readers will be familiar with different names, but the letters are universal. Ivan (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello! You are correct. This species has no English common name yet. It is a translation of the name given to it in Czech (Pichliač Greimlerov) and other languages. I had thought about not including it in the article per WP:SPECULATION, but the formation in English of common names for plants with a patronymic species name is fairly regular. If you disagree, feel free to remove it. Ivan (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can only find it as Pichliač Greimlerov in Vavrinec. Is there a peer-reviewed publication or database that uses that name? I know that C. waldsteinii can go by Pichliač Waldsteinov so I believe you, but I need to be able to use some reliable sources if I were to introduce it into the article. We can introduce using the {{lang-cs}} and {{literal translation}} templates.

As it stands, the article is overly technical and will be very difficult for a non-specialist to navigate. Therefore, I have tagged it. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 06:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ivan. Forgot to ping, sorry if you recieved it multiple times. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 06:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Classicwiki could you tag the technical sections with {{Technical inline}}? Most of the content is fairly normal for a species article (see Ourisia integrifolia for example), but I agree that some of it is too technical. It would help to know which parts. Ivan (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ivan, it is great that there is so much detail here, you have really dived deep into the research. However, Wikipedia is not a scientific manual (Wikipedia:NOTTEXTBOOK). Personally, I like as much information as possible, but this is dense and difficult to navigate for a reader. Too many numbers in the [X-]XX-XX[-X] range format (I would encourage the use the {{Convert}} template too). I like the touch with the colored text, but I believe it is against the MOS (MOS:LINKCOLOR). Ourisia integrifolia is much more manageable (although it also has its pitfalls).

Too much jargon (MOS:JARGON), lots of Wiktionary links. The lookalikes section is a bit superfluous. Often, species in the same genus can look alike, so to compare it to 17 others feels like overkill, especially since they all derive from the same source.

I commend you on your efforts here, technical language is necessary, but we must keep the reader in mind. A long way of saying, if I were to put the tags inline they would be all over the place. I hope you see where I am coming from. If you disagree, feel free to remove the tags or bring in another experienced editor to this discussion. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 07:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I will try to simplify the number format without losing valuable information for botanists, probably by relegating the extremes to the Notes section. Thank you for pointing me to {{convert}}. I will use {{color sample}} instead of coloured text.

I disagree about the Wiktionary links, though. They provide a manageable medium between the requirements of botanical descriptions and Wikipedia's lay-centric orientation. I should probably add more. I have an idea to condense the lookalikes section. Since many of them share a single aspect which is repeated for each entry, I can condense such series into paragraphs.

Once again, thank you! Ivan (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

For a database, you could use the German name from the Austrian Red List, Greimler-Kratzdistel.

• Schratt-Ehrendorfer, L. (2022). "Cirsium". Rote Liste der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen Österreichs (3rd ed.). Retrieved 2024-07-04.

Ivan (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Very limited as well. I'm fine with Greimler's thistle for the time being, as it is a very common naming pattern in this genus. -- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 07:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Nominator: Иованъ (talk · contribs) 21:36, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Eewilson (talk · contribs) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Ivan, thank you for recently creating the article Cirsium greimleri. It had not been assigned a class, so because of the extent of the information and sources, I gave it a C. Good job!

It requires many changes before it can be a GA-class article, and quite honestly, at his time, I could legitimately do an immediate failure. I don't know if it's possible to bring it to GA class within a reasonable timeframe (certainly not within several days). But if you're willing to do the work, I'm willing to stick with the review for a bit to see how it goes. I encourage you to study the Plants project pages (including, and especially, Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants, Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template, Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Assessment, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Assessment#Quality scale), and to join the Plants project. You can ask for others to take a look at the article and give input or make improvements, too. This should have been done before nominating it for GA-class since this is your first species article. I suggest that your next articles be at C or B class, having been evaluated by at least one, and perhaps several, experienced Plants editor(s), before nomination for GA.

I also encourage you to study the criteria for a Good Article, familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and study some plant species articles already classified as GA for examples, such as the following articles.

• Dacrycarpus dacrydioides
• Eucalyptus rhodantha
• Hypericum perforatum
• Ornithogalum umbellatum
• Symphyotrichum lateriflorum
• Symphyotrichum novae-angliae

With all that said, let's get started!

Here is the first list of items. More will be required before it can pass to GA.

• The Wikimedia Commons pages for each image need to not only have the link that takes us directly to the image, but also a link to the page that shows the copyright of the image. If it only has a link to the image and does not include the copyright information, please correct this on its Commons page. For example, the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cirsium_pauciflorum_(Hallier).jpg on Commons gives only the following in the Source field: https://pictures.abebooks.com/inventory/31256788042.jpg. It also needs to contain a link to the web page for that image showing the copyright information so that it can be verified that we have the right to use it. Do this for all of the images used in the article.
  • Thank you. I have made some corrections to those pages. There are two types of image employed in the article. The example you gave is a scan of a public domain illustration, not eligible for copyright in the U.S., and thanks to Hallier's death in 1932 the original is not eligible for copyright elsewhere. It has therefore been tagged with {{PD-scan|deathyear=1932}}, which results in a text indicating as much. "Werner" remains unidentified, leaving his co-author Reichenbach who died in 1889 as the sole bearer of copyright. Schnorr died in 1872. This is now indicated in the copyright tag. The other photos were uploaded from GBIF pages where you can find the copyright information under "Suggested attribution".
• On this map image, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dinaric_and_Eastern_Alps_location_map.png, you have listed yourself as the author. What we need is the actual author of the map and a link to where the map was obtained as I described above, as well as information on where to find the copyright.
  • No, I am the author of the map as it currently stands (modifications to greyscale, tiling). Hans Braxmeier is provided as the source, and he has stated on the website linked to in brackets, "MFF-maps are released under Creative Commons CC0." Unfortunately, it is impossible to link directly to the copyright information because it can only be accessed via popup (check the upper left for an "i").
• The list of taxonomic synonyms in the Taxonbox looks wrong based on POWO. On what page did you see this in the source you cite (Bureš, Petr; et.al., 2018)?
  • I have added the page number and corrected to include species authors. The ante 2018 is from the paper's own date, as that paper separated it from C. waldsteinii.
• The "Lookalikes" section should be called "Similar species" and needs to be changed from being a list to being prose. See, for example, Eucalyptus rhodantha.
  • Done. Thank you.
• Rename "Life cycle" section to "Ecology", or create an "Ecology" section and place "Life cycle" as a subsection within it.
  • Done. Thank you.
• The sections should be arranged in the following order and named appropriately. See the plant Taxon template for further information.
  • Description
    • Done. Thank you.
  • Taxonomy (in which the Etymology is usually placed)
    • Done. Thank you.
  • Distribution and habitat
    • Done. Thank you.
  • Ecology
    • Done. Thank you.
  • Conservation
    • Done. Thank you.
  • Toxicity (if applicable)
  • Uses (if applicable)
  • Cultural significance (if applicable)
    • As a newly described subalpine species, it has seen very little unambiguous use.
• The color samples need to be removed from the body of the text. They are not necessary in the article, and this is not an appropriate use of them. These are typically used for keys to maps and tables.
  • I have moved the colour samples to their own paragraph, improving the legibility of the descriptions themselves without sacrificing the information, which was provided in the supplement to the Bureš article. The authors believed colour was important for distinguishing between C. greimleri and C. waldsteinii but used a nomenclature not accessible to most readers.
• The naked footnotes showing the ranges are cryptic, have no citations, and would be better placed throughout the text. For example, each with 1-8 flowers needs to be each with 1 to 8, and sometimes up to 12, flowers.
  • The range footnotes are now supplied with citations. I had relegated them to footnotes upon recommendation because the information hampered legibility, replacing the in-text values with approximations.
• There are sentence fragments and poorly-formed sentence structures. Please review.
  • Done (to the best of my ability).
• For ranges, use the ndash rather than a hyphen.
  • Done. Thank you.
• Use the Convert template for all measurements to show both metric and US measurements (not necessary if this plant has absolutely no presence in the US).
  • No presence in the US.
• Using the botanical terms when describing the plant is good, but sometimes they need to include a non-technical description the first time they are used. Here is an example from this article:
  • Current text: "Basal leaves" change to "Ground level, or basal, leaves", placing the less technical description first and Wikilinking "basal". See WP:TECHNICAL. Do this throughout the article except in the Lead, which should mostly have non-technical prose.
    • Done. Thank you.
• I have experience working with Asteraceae articles more than other families. With so many tiny parts to an Asteraceae flower, the Description section can become quite detailed, so I have found that it can be good to break it up into subsections for readability and clarity. In the order the plant should be described, from bottom to top, here are suggested subsections. If you choose not to use subsections, it won't cause it to fail GA. But it might make it a better article if you do. If there is not enough information for a subsection here, some can be combined. For example, in the case of this species, "Roots and stems" or "Roots, stems, and leaves" could be a subsection instead of "Roots" subsection, a "Stems" subsection, etc.
  • Roots
    • Done. Thank you.
  • Stems
    • Done. Thank you.
  • Leaves
    • Done. Thank you.
  • Flowers
    • Done. Thank you.
  • Fruit
    • Done. Your divisions markedly improve the legibility of the article. Thank you.
  • Chromosomes
  • Phytochemistry
• The Ellenberg values, rather than being listed and footnoted, would be better as prose and explained in your own words. You can include that the information comes from the Ellenberg indicator values, but find a way to make this better.
  • Thank you. Replaced with prose and cited Vavrinec for Ellenberg values in footnotes.
• "Coterminous" needs to be used with a non-technical term as I explained above.
  • Done. Thank you.
• The Lead will need expansion to include summaries from other aspects of the article. See MOS:LEAD.

There is so much more... but this is a start. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience. Sorry for submitting an article so divergent from GA standards. We have written a number of other articles (including Cirsium waldsteinii) but would like to bring one as close as possible to whatever is generally accepted here, to find out what we need to do to them to avoid draftification. I will take you at your word regarding "GA", but do you believe "B" could be achieved? Ivan (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Ivan. I'll have to look at this more on Sunday. In the meantime, why don't you ask on the Plants project talk page for some other eyes to look at it? You can tell them it is a GA nominee and is being reviewed. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Driveby comments by Esculenta

I saw the post soliciting feedback on WP:Plants talk, and so wrote these up before seeing the commentary above:

• lead is much too short to fully summarise article, see WP:Lead for guidance
  • Will expand.
• suggest to link the authorities in the taxobox
  • Which field? Sorry.
    • Such as Bureš, Waldst., Kit., Spreng., etc. Esculenta (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Done. Thank you.
• mini-colour chart should be in a footnote, not the main text
  • Done. Thank you.
• should review images captions per WP:CAPFRAG
  • Done. Thank you.
• Here's the main problem with the article: much of it reads like a technical description, sometimes not even in complete sentences. I think the entire article needs to be reviewed and the prose adjusted so it's rewritten to be more accessible for a general audience. An example:

current text:

Flowers are capitula, each with 1–8[f] flowers, solitary or corymbosely terminally clustered, rarely solitary on 1–5[g] lateral pedicels.[1] Involucre[h] dimensions are 13–21[i] mm long at flowering.[7] Phyllaries in 6–7[j] rows.[1] Individual bracts flare out from the bud, with distinct vittae, the outer and inner bracts being distinguished by the presence and absence, respectively, of a visible spine.[7] Involucres are purplish brown to purplish black.

suggestion:

The flowers of Cirsium greimleri are grouped in flower heads (capitula), with each head containing between 1 and 8 individual flowers. These flower heads are either solitary or arranged in clusters at the top of the stem, sometimes appearing on 1 to 5 side branches. The protective casing around the flowers (the involucre) measures 13 to 21 mm in length during flowering. The flower head's bracts (phyllaries) are arranged in 6 to 7 rows. These bracts spread outward as the bud opens, with the outer bracts having a visible spine, while the inner ones do not. The color of the involucre ranges from purplish-brown to purplish-black.

• • This works well. Will try. Thank you.

Now, I'm not a botanist, so don't take my word on the dejargonification. Chat GPT (and other LLMs) can be very useful for this purpose. For the above, I just used the prompt "Please rewrite the following technical description of the flowers of Cirsium greimleri into more accessible prose:" Hope this helps, Esculenta (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: