Talk:Hyacinthoides non-scripta/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) 01:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks pretty good; I'm not sure that there will be any need for changes. (I'm off to double-check references.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?: Pass

It's possible that there are too many commas in a common sentence structure. The seeds are black, and germinate on the soil surface. is an example: it seems to me that the comma is incorrect. However, it's the sort of "incorrect" that I and other writers use all the time. Perhaps I should ask one of our grammar mavens about it.

I do tend to use a lot of commas. This one, I think, is actually useful. It would be easy for a reader to mistake germinate for an adjective (like geminate), and think that the seeds are "black and germinate"; the comma makes the structure of the sentence clearer. That said, there may well be others that are not needed – I've done a lot of re-structuring. I'll give the whole article a thorough copy-edit once everything else is finished. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-read the article, and I can't see any superfluous punctuation. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a longer lead section (perhaps two paragraphs). This could probably be achieved largely through re-arranging what's already there.

I've expanded the lead a little, and it now takes up two paragraphs. I think it already says everything it should, but I'm open to suggestions. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good to me, and I wanted to note that I particularly thought the addition of the harebell information a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

I'm currently reviewing citations.
Kew doesn't technically specify that the removal of wild bulbs is a "criminal offence", only that it is prohibited. I suppose it could be a civil offence. Are you certain of the facts here?

I'm quite sure that it's a criminal offence, but you're right that the sources don't explicitly say that. I'll see what I can dig up (no pun intended). --Stemonitis (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to find a local government source for the specific claim that it's a criminal rather than a civil offence. I think it's generally taken as read that the offences under the Act are criminal, so very few people say so explicitly. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me; thanks for addressing that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC source isn't exactly a high-quality medical publication of the WP:MEDRS-approved sort, but I think it's probably adequate for the small claim being made here.

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

Not a critical point, but is there any reason that you didn't mention its polyploidy, which seems to be unusual for the genus?

As far as I can see, normal H. non-scripta is indeed diploid. Stace gives 2n=16, as for other species in the genus, with occasional triploids, 2n=24, almost certainly related to hybridisation. The only fully polyploid species, according to Grundmann et al. (2010) is the Moroccan H. cedretorum. I haven't actually got the supplementary material that goes with the Grundmann paper, but I can get hold of it to check. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Grundmann abstract ("Polyploidy is confined to the H. non-scripta-hispanica clade with diploid and triploid taxa as well as a newly recognized tetraploid taxon.") is what made me wonder about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that any of the information in the four-image gallery at nl:Wilde_hyacint#Ecologische_aspecten would be useful to incorporate (recessive colors, flower diagram, fruits)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, no. The white-flowering and pink-flowering plants are evidently garden escapes, and it seems that the alternative colours are of minor interest even to horticulturists. The floral diagram merely repeats what the text already says (monocot flower with stamens partly fused to the tepals), and I doubt that floral diagrams are widely understood. The fruits could be more interesting, if we thought we had space in the article, but the picture shows the fruit of the hybrid H. × massartiana. I'll get on with re-factoring the lead and copy-editing shortly. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Passed

I've listed the article. Congratulations, and thank you for improving Wikipedia's contents so significantly.

Thank you also for letting this review be a conversation, with my suggestions taken as suggestions worth evaluating and then either accepting or rejecting on their merits, rather than "orders from on high". I enjoyed the opportunity to collaborate with you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]