Talk:Hippeastrum/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 14:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well-written, impressive article. My comments (sectionwise):

Lead Done

There seems no point in linking tribe if yu are not linking family, subfamily etc

done--Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"over 600" sounds better than "600+"

done--Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could add a few more points to the lead, like about the appearance (Description section)

Done and material reorganised to match order of sections in main text --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, this was exactly how I wished you to do it! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Description Done

What is the meaning of "tunicate"?

was explained in link to 'bulb', and copied into text after comma - have parenthesised it for greater clarity --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No references in the first paragraph

fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sessile rarely persistent - sessile, rarely persistent
2 free bracts - two free bracts

both fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Write funnelform and declinate in easier words.

I prefer to use the precise scientific terminology in botanical morphology. The definitions were included in the references - but now moved into text --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for doing so. You may find it weird of me insisting on simple English, but I do wish the text does not to become so scientific that it turns useless for the common reader. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The perianth segments are subequal or unequal. Reference?

added --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This part seems full of hard-to-understand words (I am afraid they appear to be jargons) : pluriovulate locules, filiform, trifid, discoid, phytomelanous. My point is just not to make this part sound too scientific. Express the facts in simple words, just what they exactly mean, so that the reader may really take benefit of it.

See above - I think it needs to be scientific to be accurate, but I agree we could add plain English - there are likely to be two classes of readers - will see what I can do here, but much of it is explained in links --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So I added several internal and external glossaries to the page, and linked all technical terms to definitions, in many cases adding definitions to our internal glossaries, since provides the greatest value. I think that to expand every technical term would make this very unwieldy. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need of any more efforts here. Perfectly done, thanks for fixing this problem so well (and quickly too). Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy Done

I think you should shift this section above Description. It would look better then.

See below.

"Common name" and "Etymology" sections can be turned into a single independent section "Etymology". The name Hippeastrum was first given to the genus by Herbert ... which it superficially resembles can be included there, and "Common name" can be made a subsection. I suggest you maintain the order as Etymology --> Taxonomy --> Description.
This is contrary to the WP:PLANTS template; most readers aren't interested in the taxonomy, so we should start with a description. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common Name (Amaryllis) and Etymology (Hippeastrum) are quite separate - to combine them would be confusing --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your views, I have considered them. I think we should place the "taxonomy" part after "Ecology" (I feel all necessary details - in which a reader is usually interested in- is covered thus). But certainly "Etymology" needs to be a separate section. It is a small section, and the best place for it would be before "Description". Does it look proper now? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really confused here. I am going by Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template here: namely;

- Description
- Taxonomy (including etymology)
- Distribution
- Ecology

Very well, we should move on, if this is what the template says. Done. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amaryllis belladonna comma here the type species and genus Amaryllis comma here in his

done--Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was assumed ... Natural History Museum in London No reference

fixed--Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the duplicate links Amaryllis belladonna, Amaryllis, Leopoldia, Herbert, Hortus Kewensis,spatha.

Spatha only occurs once on page, otherwise deleted --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Separate common names are used to describe the genus Amaryllis, e.g. "Naked Lady". No reference

supplied --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

being derived from the Greek ... name Equestris" (p.12). No reference

fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Under this section, all issues except one (indicated in bold letters) have been fixed. This problem is being discussed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this should be a deal breaker --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are done with this now. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution and habitat Done

Shouldn't Hippeastrum be italicized? I see that the name is normal or italicized at various places throughout the text. Make it uniform.

italicised throughout --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology Done

Delete duplicate links : northern hemisphere, scapes,evergreen,Species,subtropical.

I didn't find any duplicates in this section --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly and Species are unnecessary links

Debatable. I believe species is only linked once on the page --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we can allow the link "species". Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scapes is repeated twice

fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

larger the bulb comma here the more

done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the third paragraph of Flowering, use bullet list or ordered list and write point-wise rather than in one line.

done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of the species Hippeastrum I think it is a genus?

it is but species Hippeastrum refers to hippeastrum species that are sold as such as opposed to cultivars - will reword --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The genus has a high ... 3 to 5 years no reference

actually I am now not so sure that the statement about compatibility is correct as stated elsewhere, so will modify --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

both parts now ref. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breeding and propagation Done

Hippeastrum pardinum should be italicized in the image caption

fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicate links hybrids, cultivars.

only occur once in this section --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the late 19th and early 20th century saw amaryllis breeding develop - The late 19th and early 20th century saw Amaryllis breeding develop
In the late 19th and early 20th century... the European strains no reference
In 1946 comma here two
Three main methods are used for propagating Hippeastrum; I think colon is more suitable than semicolon
6 years to bloom six years. Similarly 3–4 years - three to four.

punctuation fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is (Radescu 2012) ? Write clearly.

ref to biliog - now internalised --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation Done

Link threatened, vulnerable

done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brasil or Brazil?

Brazil --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confused by what you mean in Hippeastrum arboricolum Ravenna (Argentina) and all the next points. Clearly mention what you mean.

Removed authorities as already in Species section. The names of countries in parentheses are where they are threatened --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cultivation Done

Two whole paragraphs are unreferenced

done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicate links temperate, cultivars.

done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

10 cm above the bulb. Convert template.

? - used 10 cm {{nowrap|10 [[Centimetre|cm]]}}- is that what you meant? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uses Done

What is (Kamenetsky and Okubo, 442)?

ref bibiog. now internalised --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete duplicate link Netherlands

done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other suggestions Done

~~Why don't you merge the text in Intergeneric hybrids and Synonyms with Taxonomy? They look awkward as independent sections. Write the synonyms in one line if you include it in Taxonomy.~~

The major problems here are with the verifiability and clarity of writing. Please respond soon to my comments. Don't worry, this is an article worthy to be a GA, no doubt at that. We need more efforts here. Cheers! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume theese are all covered in the above?--Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your swift response. The above issues are solved. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

The citation style used is highly inconsistent and in many cases not in accord with usual WP citation styles. It's not clear to me what style should be used: before the recent expansion (e.g. around November 2013) the main style was that of the {{Citation}} template. I am working on making the styles consistent – I think that using the various "Cite" templates may be best. Any views? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I use the general "cite" templates - will suit this the best. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all the references; the Bibliography entries wait to be done – feel free! Peter coxhead (talk) 12:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. Let us know when all the work is finished. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok will push on with bibliography --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

Final

The text is well-ordered and written properly, and all the rest issues have been addressed. Thus I can now pass this article for GA status. It has been great working with you, Mgoodyear. Good luck for your future efforts, and hope this article goes on for FAC! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article

Congratulations! Nice article. I think it's not far off from a FA. :) --Tom Hulse (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest for a FA? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of what Sasata guided me about FAC, firstly, an article has to be rich in literature. I am not sure about plant articles, you can refer to plant FAs (see [here]). This article is already great in its coverage, but you should contact other experienced editors. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 04:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]