Talk:Gaylussacia brachycera/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 12:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, taking my first look through.

"The evergreen leaves, lacking resin glands, are in sharp contrast to other species of Gaylussacia." You just said that they turn red in winter; how, then, are they evergreen?
I'm using evergreen in the botanical sense of "not deciduous". The usage is supported by some of the references.
"which appear in July and August." The pedicles, or the fruit?
The fruit, rephrased to make it clear.
Can we have full names of the botanists in the taxonomy section, if possible?
Fixed.
"to a monotypic genus, Buxella brachycera," Buxella brachycera is not a monotypic genus- it's a species
Rephrased to make it clear that B. brachycera was the one member of Buxella.
"was condemned on" Not the best word
Rephrased.
"is "equivocal," and" Comma should probably be outside quotemarks
Fixed.
The discussion of it being the second oldest organism really belongs in the ecology section- the lead is meant to summarise information found elsewhere in the article, and so mentioning things there not mentioned elsewhere is something of a no-no. On that note, the lead looks a little short- a slightly longer lead (perhaps in two paras) would probably be appropriate
Shuffled material around and lengthened the lead.
"and have not been commercially cultivated." Reference?
Reluctantly dropped, as I can't seem to prove it.
The "scientific history" section isn't really needed. The content could probably be split between the current taxonomy section (which, I guess, you could rename something like "taxonomic history and phylogeny"), the current distribution section and a new section on the conservation history and status.
Distributed among existing sections.
"fortunately, Edgar T. Wherry" NPOV- we aren't allowed to want the plant to survive!
Fixed.
There's some inconsistency in the dating formatting in the references
Fixed, I think.
Why should this be considered reliable?
Cook is a research associate at Duke working in the field of ecology.
Ref 4 lacks a publisher
Fixed, including the web links.
Be consistent in whether you cite publishers for journals- I'd say it wasn't really necessary
I think DOI bot put them there, so I've gone all out.
While book titles should be capitalised (The Book of Things) article titles should be in sentence case ("A study showing that things can be found in several European states")
Fixed
Ref 18 lacks a publisher- it would not normally be reliable, but looks ok in this case. I know some people would get rather annoyed about a commercial link like this being used as a source, but I do not have a problem with it if you do not have a more reliable source stating that it is available commercially.
I found another ref that states its commercial availability.

Generally not bad- it looks like everything's there, it'll just need a little restructuring. Great to see a new face submitting articles of this sort at GAC! J Milburn (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, take another look (particularly at the lead rewrite) and see if you like it. Choess (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking much better- it's nice to keep things formatted in a familiar way.

"other huckleberries. Its leaves distinguish it from other huckleberries" Reptition
rephrased to "other members of its genus".
"Its fruits, which appear in July and August,[4] consist of blue berries borne on short pedicels,[6]" Were you wanting to say something more, or is it a typo?
typo. Fixed.
"discovered in 1796" Described? Presumably, the locals knew of it before then
Changed to "collected and described".
You mention more details about the very old organism in the lead than you do in the prose
"In New Bloomfield, residents have embraced the box huckleberry and dropped a papier-mache huckleberry replica to celebrate the new year.[19]" What does this mean?
Rephrased to explain this; it's a new year's ball drop. I've added hyperlinks. (It's already in our list of objects dropped on New Year's!)
The short paragraphs in "human use" don't look great.

Generally very nice, very much GA material. I'd be happy to promote once these issues have been resolved. J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope no-one minds my butting in. I have a couple of small suggestions for the article:

It's André Michaux, not "Andre Michaux".
Fixed.
The lead contains the text "a relict species predating the last ice age". This does not appear in the main text, and is therefore not cited anywhere. It's also a little vague and entirely unsurprising, since most species are at least that old. Do you mean that it pre-dates the last glacial maximum? (If a clone can persist for 13,000 years, then the LGM could be as few as two generations ago.) Has an age estimate – of the species – been published? If not, it's probably easiest simply to drop the clause.
I've added a cited mention in the main text and made it clear that it's not necessarily the colony that survived the ice age.
According to IPNI, the date of publication of Michaux' name was 1803. It might be worth trying to work that into the text somehow.
Done.
"Geleichia dubitella" must be a typo for Gelechia dubitella. I'm not sure that's the current name, either. If Gelechia dubitella is the same as Depressaria dubitella, then the current name is apparently Dichomeris juncidella ([1]).
Correct.
Use the jstor= parameter where applicable, rather than using url=, and also add the bibcode= for ref. 11 (Bibcode:1919Sci....50...30C).
Fixed.
Add italics for binomials, genera and sections in refs. 9–11.
Fixed.
I agree with J. Milburn that publishers of journals need not be included, despite the actions of certain bots, except in cases of ambiguity. I find that linking the journals fulfils that function admirably.
Publishers stripped for the journals and links added where a red- or bluelink existed elsewhere for the journal.

Overall, though, the article looks very good indeed. As J. Milburn says, it's good to see someone writing this kind of article. Plants are terribly underrepresented at GA. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the two issues that remain are moving around some of the "oldest organism" information and the aesthetics of the paragraphs in human use. Thanks for your patience (I've been on vacation) and I appreciate the additional comments. I'll try to work on the last 2 issues ASAP. When this is done, I plan to start on a fern article which I hope can also be brought to this level of quality. Choess (talk) 08:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reordered the ecology and human use sections. The oldest organism information has gotten more complicated; Rob Nicholson (coauthor on ref. 9) has published in the latest Arnoldia and among other things says that 13,000 years must be an overestimate on climactic grounds. Working on it. Choess (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article's looking nice- let me know when you're ready for a (probably last) look through. J Milburn (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I made a last little tweak, and I think it's ready for a final look. Choess (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few more thoughts-

You don't mention the second common name in the prose, and so there's no reference for it
The way you format the refs is slightly inconsistent- compare the listing of authors in refs 18 and 19, for instance.

Sorry, just little things now. Happy to promote once you've fixed them. J Milburn (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, 2nd common name is now referenced to Sims (1806!) and Camp and Claypole now have full names. Choess (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still a few little inconsistencies (at the very least, between "&" and "and") but I am happy to promote at this time. Good work. J Milburn (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]