Talk:Gaga (plant)

Focus

I appreciate that the author's interest is more in Lady Gaga than in ferns, but the current article has far too much about Lady Gaga, and not enough about the ferns. Compare to our article on Spongiforma, which is another genus which received a bit of media coverage for its unusual name. For example, the lead seems to be mostly about Lady Gaga, while the species list doesn't contain the author information and year of description of the various species, which is key information for an article like this. J Milburn (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@J Milburn: thanks for the fresh output on the article. This is my first time writing about a biology topic so please pardon my mistakes. Yes the article must have gone a little overboard about Gaga. Might I ask your input as to how to better it? Also, I did not understand the last bit about the author info and year of description. Could you please explain that also? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Choess has just added the information I mentioned- I'll have a closer look at the article and get back to you. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I second J. Milburn's concerns. To my eye, this is mostly about the PR surrounding Pryer's choice of name and it doesn't really say much about the fern itself. Admittedly, these are tricky ferns to write about: the reason they were classified in Cheilanthes for so long is that there are a lot of convergent morphological characters in the cheilanthoids that don't say much about evolutionary relationships. You might want to look at the Plants article template; I've also been slowly cranking out some detailed articles on individual fern species, see the higher-rated Asplenium articles here, for instance. Gaga shouldn't require such eye-watering detail, since it's about the genus and the similarities that unite it, but you can see that the current article really doesn't say much about the genus as such: where are its species found, what habitats do they colonize, how are they similar in morphology or appearance. I'll try to get hold of the Systematic Botany paper and see what I can contribute. Choess (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Choess: thank you again for your help. Please add whatever you feel is missing in the article and I admit, I did not know where to look for the sources regarding the ferns itself. I will tr to search to the best of my abilities too. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Choess and J Milburn: any update on the article? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The focus is still way off, for me. "Gaga is a genus of 19 species of ferns in the family Pteridaceae named after American singer and songwriter Lady Gaga." The fact it was named after Lady Gaga is a piece of trivia- where the ferns found? Habitat/Distribution? Is there any particular reason (other than the fact they're named after Lady Gaga) that two species are mentioned in the lead? The whole lead seems to be about Lady Gaga, and not really about the ferns. J Milburn (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just taken a glance through Li et. al. and I have to say that there's a lot of stuff in there which belongs in this article but hasn't been included, such as infrageneric classification. More information in the species list would be useful (perhaps important synonyms, certainly an indication of distribution). The "media reaction" stuff doesn't really belong in this article. I recommend you find someone with a knowledge of botany and ask them to help you with this. In all honesty, genus articles can be pretty difficult, as they often need to cover pretty technical details. J Milburn (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Milburn, I hope Choess can help me with it. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 15:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)