Talk:Fritillaria/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: I'll take this one. Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 11:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a large and clearly well-constructed article; I see you've been working on it for some years now, and I presume it's headed for FAC shortly. Still, I have a few small comments which may help to add a little polish.

Minor comments

Lead

"a number of" => "some". Done --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 21:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the uses of "very"; in general it's undesirable.

Removed

Done --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 22:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why if there are "about 140 species" [worldwide] do we need a map of 10 of them in Eurasia? Perhaps the map is misplaced here, and should be in Distribution and habitat, where its partial nature would not be a problem.

Basically because it was the only map I could find. But I can see how it could be misleading. Moved as suggested.

Done --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 22:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Description

"pseudobasifixed" needs wikilink or gloss in text.

Unsure what you mean here. The term is explained under Stamen, which is linked at beginning of section, and it is further explained in parentheses, immediately after the term. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 22:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just added it to Glossary of botanical terms, if you think that would be a useful link. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 22:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased text for clarity (and started revision of Stamen page). --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 02:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks.

Phytochemistry

"Fritillaria, like other members of the family," better say "of the Liliaceae" really. Done --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 02:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phylogeny

Not a GA matter, but the branch labels on the cladograms could be better formatted. You could put the geographic indications below the line, using sublabel=, for instance, which would make the lines shorter and the cladograms accordingly less wide.

Good idea!

Done --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 12:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That has worked very nicely!

"in a polytomous relationship with Lilium, which could suggest Fritillaria is actually two distinct genera."; hmm. Is that not a non sequitur? You might say something along the lines that the tree is not fully resolved but that there seem to be two F. clades and that further work might accordingly split F. into two genera.

In truth, this is a work in progress, with continuing analyses, some of which are not congruent. Let me take another run at it, with some even more recent data since I wrote that section - a moving target! --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 13:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand. Some editors would write a smiley face at this point ...

Having just done a Google Scholar search, more a :(. Stay tuned --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 16:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased in mean time

Done --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 16:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On further literature review I have not found anything that would change the conclusion as now written --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 00:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Species

"about 150 taxa (species and subspecies)". "taxa" actually seems a bit misleading here. Why not just say "about 150 species and subspecies".

In my experience the use of taxa is a common term to be inclusive of both species and subspecies, as opposed to just species. I wrote taxa primarily, with an explanatory note in parentheses. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 13:51, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The thing is, it also includes genera, families, orders ... I think minor rewording might be an improvement.

It is just that taxa is used throughout the page, following the sources, and on this page it refers to species and below. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 16:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor reword

Done --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 16:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that the Diversity map in the Infobox says "about 140 species". Which would be right if there are 10 subspecies to make up the 150, but it feels a bit lumpy!

I was always taught to use "about", when referring to species, because (a) new species continue to be reported, and speciation often varies between authorities and databases. Hence my provision of a list of different estimates immediately beneath the heading Species. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 16:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Still.

Distribution and habitat

"the Thames river" => "the river Thames", for British ears anyway.

Ha! I have spent a lot of time on and by the Thames and heard both, possibly contextual. Anyway the WP page is River Thames, so

Done --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 16:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation

maybe wikilink habitat fragmentation , medicinal plant.

Sigh. There is a wide spread of opinion among editors about over and underlinking!

Done --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 16:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Horticulture

Italics for Fritillaria. I was probably thinking horticultural usage. Done --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 16:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Alpine Garden Society 2011 is unlinked.

Brown 2015 is unlinked.

eMonocot 2019 is unlinked, clashes with 2014 date.

Date refers to date entry made, not date of retrieval. Page has not been updated - eMonocot was unfunded in 2014. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 17:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well the link is harvard-broken, see below.

It wasn't yesterday. Today I get a message that the server is experiencing technical difficulties. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 00:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hill 2017 is unlinked.

Missouri Botanical Garden 2017 is unlinked.

Pacific Bulb Society 2015 is unlinked.

Rix 1980 is unlinked.

I'm unclear what is meant by "unlinked", do you mean not eventually cited in wikitext? Again there seem to be many opinions on this. Some like to place these in "Further reading" or External links". To me it makes far more sense to have a coherent bibliography. Besides which the situation is always fluid. Some editors will inevitably come along and delete some text, leaving an entry in the Bibliography with no "link". While others, including myself, may add something later. Either way they remain useful resources that were consulted in the preparation. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 17:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do mean not cited; these items appear in my display as broken harvard links. Well, a consistent position, probably mine, is that Bibliog. contains only linked items, and Further reading (or similar, your mileage may vary) contains only unlinked items (preferably with harvard linking disarmed to remove the errors). That would be my recommendation; but I'm not going to fuffle through the MoS for an hour for support for that.

I assume you mean this message in Brown: "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFeMonocot2017." It used to be Red and say "Harv error" till I and and a number of colleagues complained it was misleading. As it is, it is actually helpful, although most users don't see it because it is a setting in preferences. Harvard linking is a user setting, not the writer's. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 00:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well WP is not that rigid (sometimes I wish it was, as in a publishing house, or scientific journal). My experience has been different and it has worked for many GA and FA pages to date. As it is I think it makes more sense. It is after all, a Bibliography, not References Cited, and as I mention, likely a fluid situation. So my preference would be to leave it as it is, it that's ok with you. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 00:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the key thing is that it has been thought through, not accidentally hyper-scrambulated.

Power

Massive power failure. Signing off to conserve battery. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 17:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Power finally restored in this part of the city, after the hurricane. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 00:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a first for my GA reviews!

Summary

I'm satisfied that this article is well up to the required GA standard. I hope you feel that the review has added some value to the article as well as doing the necessary checking.

The GAN process relies entirely on volunteers, most of whom have nominated articles for GA themselves. I do hope that you will take the time to pick one or two articles from the GAN list to review, to keep the cycle going. With my best wishes, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for all your help. Yes I will certainly look into it, now I have had enough experience with the process --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 13:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]