Talk:Dracophyllum fiordense/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 20:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"fiordland grass tree" this isn't mentioned in the article, there shouldn't be anything in the lead alone.

I've added it again in the etymology sec.

You arbitrarily split the lead mid-description. I would just merge the first two paras.

Done

"and Westland National Parks" put National Parks inside the pipelink.

Done I think

"It was first described" reinforce the subject here.

Done

"to D. menziesii" link?

Done

Conservation status could be mentioned in the lead.

Done

"4.92–16.40 ft" be consistent with conversion accuracy, the lead didn't go to 1/00th of a foot.

Done

"Its branches grow ... and are rarely branched" grammar is a bit off for me, but also this seems contradictory, perhaps switch the other way, i.e. It is rarely branched but when it is,...

The line from the source is: "Branches erect and sparsely branched," which also makes no sense. I like your wording though, and have changed it to: "It is rarely branched but when it is, they grow upright and have greyish-brown bark on older sections, whilst newer growth is a yellow-brown." Which I think reads better.

"the rachis and the pedicel (flower stem) " you tell us what a pedicel is, but not rachis (nor the previously mentioned panicle.

Reworded

"pedicels, which have caducous" pedicels is overlinked, what does "caducous" mean?

Unlinked, caducous means bits which fall off early or easily, so I put it in brackets as the jargon to which I was referring.

And bracteoles?

Done

And ciliate and corolla?

Ciliate given as further information/real wording of many small hairs, corolla now done.

And anther?

Done

"article.[7][4]" ref order

Done

"the genus Dracophyllum, as well" overlinked.

Done

"D. townsonii and" overlinked.

Done

" the Mount Cook and Westland National Parks" see earlier comment. And these seem to be piped to slightly different targets from before.

Done

"the New Zealand Journal of Botany, however" journals are italicised.

Done

"60 to 75 km " convert.

Done

"fruit.[4][4] " so good you ref'ed it twice.

Fixed

"Zealand."-> Zealand". (in the note)

Don't punctuation marks go in the quote? Or is this an exception.

""WELT55115"[4]" full stop before ref as this is a complete sentence.

Done

Retrieval dates for websites should be consistently formatted.

Done

ISBNs should be consistently presented.

I think all the ones that have ISBN's have them or am I wrong.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok @The Rambling Man: I have addressed all your comments but have found a few small bits I want to add if that's ok.

@The Rambling Man: I've added a few more lines at the end of the description and in the distribution section if you want to have a quick check, I think that's all the information there is. Thanks, Draco phyllum 23:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]