Jump to content

Talk:Eucalyptus rhodantha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Eucalyptus rhodantha/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eewilson (talk · contribs) 09:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Details

[edit]

...more to come.... must feed special needs cats. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. Lots of stuff here intermixed with my save a couple of hours ago. I believe it's the middle of the night and early Sunday morning in Western Australia, so I'm good. :) This is all I'm doing today (Saturday here) and it covers all my thoughts at this time (although I may have forgotten something). I probably won't look at it again until after I start hearing from you. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

[edit]
  • My review will be focused on GA and good plants article criteria, which are not contradictory. Certain sections and information are required content for a good plants article (which is part of "coverage" as required for GA criteria), yet are not as comprehensive as what would be for a featured plants article. If you do think I get carried away with what is covered here, let me know and I can rethink.
  • I made some minor copyedits in the lead and description for readability.
  • Spell out genus name the first time used at each 2-level section and possibly other lower-level sections if needed
  • Eucalyptus rhodantha var. rhodantha is the same as the species minus any accepted varieties. This may seem a random comment, but I may mention it later.
  • First usage of a measurement should always be spelled out (param to {{Convert}} is |abbr=off). I always do it in the lead as well as first usage in the body.
  • I am not yet looking for copyright violations. I did Earwig and found one that I think was an uncited copy from the article, not to it, so I'm not worried. I have neither checked nor compared sources because after changes, I would have to do it all over again, so I will do that later. Make sure all changes have citations and are sourced, as I'm sure you will.
  • Have added some replies today and need to take a break then do more before moving again into Ecology and after. See my changes in this review as of today (Dec. 14th). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speciesbox

[edit]

Lead

[edit]

The lead is sparse and will need summarized and simplified information on taxonomy, habitat, ecology, conservation. I've gotten fairly good at writing leads, so we should be able to come up with a good one. Most people don't read past the lead, so they should be able to get the basic information they want there whereas at the same time, being enticed to read more. It could be said to be the most difficult part of the article. See MOS:LEAD.

The following information is in the lead but not in the body. It should be in the body and sourced. Reminder that the lead is a simplified summary of the article body, not a sole holder of facts that will not be presented in the article.

Description

[edit]

New stuff since the expansion:

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New one:

  • "Smaller branchlets have no oil glands in the pith and have a rounded cross-section." There has been no mention of oil glands up to this point. Do branches have oil glands, just not the smaller ones? Because as a reader, I'm left going, "yeah, okay, so ...?" Oil glands are also mentioned after this. But what I'm getting at is that there needs to be something that says the species has oil glands, and explain them. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy and naming

[edit]
  • Recommend to call this "Taxonomy" with a subsection "Etymology" or "Name"
  • Subsection "Varieties". Here discuss that sources do not agree on the acceptance of varieties. POWO is here: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:593308-1. If the varieties aren't listed in the speciesbox, then the body will still need the variety/ies discussed in this way. A featured article could go into detail about why it is no longer accepted by POWO (and possibly other sources), but for a GA, only discussing the disagreements and similarieties among the sources is necessary.
  • Autonym does not typically have an authority because it was automatically created when the first infraspecies was created, unless you find something that contradicts this.
  • Review Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template#Taxonomy. I go by this with the idea that a FA will try to include everything, and a GA will include these basic items (note that the article already has some of this):
  • Why is E. rhodantha var. × petiolaris treated as a hybrid variety and not a straight hybrid? If it's not a variety of E. rhodantha but is a hybrid of E. rhodantha var. rhodantha and E. pyriformis, then shouldn't we treat it as a hybrid and not a variety? And if it is a hybrid, not a variety, then I would think that would eliminate E. rhodantha var. rhodantha altogether...? What do the latest sources say? All of this needs to be covered in Taxonomy.
  • related to that... Subdivision treatment in species articles is a bit different than for Genus and up. These are the infraspecies, and their descriptions, D&H, etc., don't go here, just their taxonomies. If you decide to cover the varieties as accepted, then they need a blurb sentence in the lead, and coverage in each section. If you go with POWO and consider them not valid at this point, coverage would be considered in a historical context and would not need as detailed a treatment, so coverage in taxonomy in a way I have already discussed will be sufficient. If still viewed as accepted by Australian authorities, then they probably should be treated as such here. So that's an important thing that must be determined and dealt with appropriately. I hit this type of situation when working on Symphyotrichum lateriflorum. There were several varieties formerly accepted that are treated by primary authorities now as synonyms of the species. But because some of them are still accepted by certain authorities or in certain locations, I still covered them to some extent in Taxonomy. If you want examples of how varieties have been integrated in a species article, I know of at least one that I've been working on and another partially done, and I'm sure there are others that I haven't had a hand in.
  • (For FA, Phylogeny including a cladogram could be added, but not necessary for a GA.)

Since changes:

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution and habitat

[edit]

Ecology

[edit]

Another:

Reproduction

[edit]

Conservation

[edit]

More:

  • Comment: "It is believed that inbreeding has resulted in weaker plants..." same concern here as "it is thought that" in Reproduction section. This type of wording can be consider weasel words, but not necessarily. See if there is a more precise way of wording it (and the others).
  • Hmmm: I'm not sure what to think about the "may have" wording in the last two sentences of the first paragraph in this section. What does the source say?
  • Caps: If the status terms are official names of statuses, use proper name capitalization, and you don't need quotation marks in that case.
  • Use As of template for dates that could become out of date; I implemented these.
  • Changed link I changed link from Endangered species to Endangered species (IUCN status) for the status.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use in horticulture

[edit]

REFERENCES, SOURCING, ETC.

[edit]
  • Blakely does not talk about the crown leaves/juvenile leaves (unless I missed it), and there is no citation after the quoted two sentences, below, about the crown. This part then leads into mature leaves that do get covered in Blakely and are cited with Blakely. What's the source for the crown and crown leaves?
The leaf bearing portion of the plant, the crown, is composed entirely of juvenile leaves that are sessile, lacking a stalk and attach directly to the stem. They are arranged in opposite pairs and their bases surround the stem. The leaves are dull silver-grey or glaucous on both sides, circular to heart-shaped, 45–80 mm (1.8–3.1 in) long and 30–75 mm (1.2–3.0 in) wide. ← Needs citation(s) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The flower buds are arranged singly in leaf axils on a down-turned peduncle of length 10–20 mm (0.39–0.79 in), with a pedicel of length 8–20 mm (0.31–0.79 in). The large flowers can be up to 8 cm (3.1 in) in diameter and bright red to pink, or occasionally yellow.
    • Fixed (Euclid)
  • flower buds singly in leaf axils
    • this source does not mention flower buds in leaf axils
Euclid says "Inflorescence axillary unbranched, pendulous..." (this is now the reference) In botany axillary means "the upper angle between a leaf stalk or branch and the stem or trunk from which it is growing." [2] Do I need to add that as a reference to? Hughesdarren (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, since there's a problem here, I wonder if there are problems other places. Please go through and compare the entire article with the sources cited for each part and correct or cite differently if needed. Let me know when you're done, and then I'll look again. I don't want to run through the whole source review until you have verified first. I know some of this was there before you started working on it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancies
[edit]

Detailed read-through. There are still source-prose discrepancies. Here the list for Description and Taxonomy, and I'll have to pick it up later to do more.

  • The stems branch from ground level from the lignotuber and spread outward and upward to a width of about 3 m (10 ft) from the origin.[6] ← that doesn't seem to be the correct source for this sentence. Maybe Blakely, except he doesn't say "upward", just "outward". The rest of the info in this sentence does match Blakely, though.
  • Flowering occurs from July or September to December or January... sometimes creamy white. – source given is Euclid and actually reads "Flowering has been recorded in February, May, July, August and September", which is completely different. It also says "rarely creamy white", and the prose says "sometimes". .... Not only that, but in the sentence directly before, the prose says about the flowers ...bright red to pink, or occasionally yellow.[9] If the flower colors are in the previous sentence, they don't need to be here (especially if they don't agree!).
  • Mature buds... glaucous, finely ribbed... Source, Euclid, says "often finely ribbed".
  • Holotypes are held at the National Herbarium of New South Wales[6] and at Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.[14] There is only one holotype (unless, of course, there are others for synonyms, but there could be isotypes); I see the holotype is at Kew. So that second source for this sentence is good. But the first part where you use Euclid as a source of a "holotype" at the NSW herbarium, I don't see anything on that page about a type specimen.

Still have to do the rest. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hughesdarren, just wanted to let you know I've been a little overwhelmed IRL and on Wikipedia and will get back to this soon! Possibly later today, but more likely tomorrow (Friday). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

  • The map contradicts what is written in D&H section. Perhaps the map needs modification?
    • The map agrees with the maps in sources provided (3+4), (excluding the Perth specimens), I'm not too sure what to do for this....
  • Please add page numbers (or other location identifiers if page numbers are not applicable) that represent the source of information for each of the citations for the following references: 7, 8, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 30, and 32. If the source is cited in only one location, you can put the page in the citation definition if you choose. If it is used in more than one place, see WP:REFPAGE, {{R}}, and {{Rp}}. I can't really check these until there are page numbers. See also comments for source number 9.
7. Threatened Species Scientific Committee (13 July 2017). "Conservation Advice Eucalyptus rhodantha (rose mallee)"
8. Blakely, William F.; McKie, Ernest Norman; Steedman, Henry (1938). "Description of four new species and two varieties of eucalypts"
19. Parker, Cheryl M.; Percy-Bower, Julia M. (2015). "Updates to Western Australia's vascular plant census for 2015"
20. "Interim recovery plan No. 229 (Eucalyptus rhodantha) Interim Recovery Plan 2006-2011"
22. "Part 2 - AG401 - Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 - Biodiversity Conservation (species) order 2022"
23. "Conservation codes for Western Australian Flora and Fauna"
25. "Advice to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) on Amendments to the list of Threatened Species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)"
30. Holliday, I.; Watton, G. (1980). A Gardener's Guide to Eucalypts
32. "Traditional ecological knowldege"
  • completed with the exception of ref 30 - I don't have a copy of this book and was unable find an online version.Hughesdarren (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. I did see one weird thing; in the very last sentence, are the page numbers meant to be together, or do they each go to one of those sources at the end? Eucalypts are culturally important to Aboriginal Australians for many uses and meanings.[31][32]:5:9:11[33] I think you may just want one call to {{Rp}} using the |pp= parameter with a comma separated list, like this: |pp=5,9,11. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too-close-for-comfort-paraphrasing. Can you do something about this?
    • The prose in D&H reads: Aside from a plant recorded at Eneabba Creek in 1953, the species occurs only at Three Springs and Watheroo. Eneabba Creek and nearby areas were observed in August 1991 but no other populations were found. Since then, the region has been cleared of native vegetation for agriculture.
    • The source "Rose Mallee (Eucalyptus rhodantha) Recovery Plan 1999-2002" reads as follows: Apart from a 1953 collection from Eneabba Creek, all the specimens are from the Three Springs and Watheroo sites. Eneabba Creek and surrounding areas were surveyed during August 1991 but no other populations were located. The region has been largely cleared of native vegetation for agriculture.
      • Changed to "All the plants collected are from the Watheroo and Three Springs locations with the exception of one plant recorded from Eneabba Creek in 1953. Eneabba Creek and nearby areas were observed in August 1991 but no other populations were found. Since that time, the bulk of the natural flora has been cleared for agricultural purposes." Hope this doesn't sound too clunkyHughesdarren (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same here, only not quite as close-paraphrasing:
    • Prose: Two moderately undisturbed populations of E. rhodantha occur on uncleared private land in the vicinity of Watheroo. The rest are found on vacant and grazed farmland and degraded road borders.
    • Source: There are only two relatively undisturbed populations of E. rhodantha. They occur on uncleared private land in the Watheroo area. The remainder occur on cleared and grazed farmland and degraded road verges.
  • Did you download the IUCN Supplementary Information PDF (this link) from the IUCN Red List page for this species and use anything in it? If so, could you sort that out so that it is a different reference or citation from just the web page, and then cite page numbers, where applicable? It is 28 pages long, and I don't know if you got info from there or not.
  • Source number 9. This source 9 ("environment") is dated 1995. Add that year to the citation template for it. Is the PDF download the same as the web page? The PDF has the authors' names, which should be cited. I think changing the link for that reference to the PDF (https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/e-rhodantha.pdf) would be prudent. (For example, it has the authors, it is more stable, and when I click on links on the web page, some are broken). Then, go through and find the page numbers and include them in the citations. This is a long source with a lot of information (the PDF is 28 pages).

I looked back at the history of the talk page of this article, and cl-paraphr has been a problem from the beginning. Gonna have to clean that up before it can be GA. Please do a comparison again with sources to make sure it's dealt with.

Hi! Wow, time has flown. I haven't looked at this since last year! :) I apologize for the delay in response. I had done earwig, and it didn't flag anything. I'll run it again. I stopped looking manually after those first two, above, and decided to put it back on you to check manually with the rest of it. I'll look at what you've done already and then keep going with my review. Maybe there isn't anything else. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, no worries, I had a couple of days off too. We are finally getting some summer sun here and the beach is always looking like a better option when the sun is shining. Still checking for paraphrasing and doing a few adjustments. Kind of slow going but feel there is some progress. Earwig did give me a bit of help. Still looking, will let you know when I'm done. Hughesdarren (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do these sentences from D&H contradict each other? The second one occurs right after the first, and since I don't know the geography, I can't be sure. If they do contradict each other, it's important to say so.
  1. Eucalyptus rhodantha is native to Western Australia[12] and is found in the Avon Wheatbelt and Geraldton Sandplains bioregions.[4]
  2. The plant is only known from the northern wheatbelt where a few remnant stands remain near Three Springs and Watheroo.[7]:1
– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just discovered page number problems for PDF source #9: Kelly, A.E.; Coates, D.J. (1995). "Rose Mallee Recovery Plan 1999-2002". It looks like you used the PDF page numbers (at the top) instead of the numbers typed at the bottom of the page. I was looking for something on page 8 as stated in the article and it turned out it's on page 1, which is page 8 of the PDF but page 1 of the document. The page numbers need to be the ones with respect to the document. I hope that just made sense. Did this happen with all the PDFs? If so, go through and fix them before GA is finalized. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I had mentioned that above (for the comment on source 9) "reference details changed and page numbers included (NB:Used the page numbers from the pages on the side bar rather that the latin numerals used for part of the report)". I'll go through and change it again. Completed now (although the report has no page i on the actual report , the third page is iii, there is no other way to label it). Hughesdarren (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cool. Thanks. In the situation where there is an implied page number, I think we put it in brackets, like this: [i], but if we do that, it looks weird since the citations are in brackets, so the "i" is good as you have it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WELL! This article has come a long way! Thank you for your changes and your perseverance. I think we're ready to call it GA! I'll make the final changes to this review. CONGRATULATIONS!! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eucalyptus_rhodantha&oldid=1198270661"