Talk:Platanthera yadonii

Platanthera yadonii was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
Review: April 21, 2007.

A fact from Platanthera yadonii appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 November 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Piperia yadonii is a rare and endangered species of wild orchid whose survival may be influenced by the demand for increased golfing on the Monterey Peninsula?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/November.

Wikipedia

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California High‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Nominate for GA status

Article is well written, has satisfactory images, well organized, stable, well sourced, NPOV and is usable. Architectsf 18:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Well written
1. Compelling and comprehensible prose: The prose is occasionally somewhat unencyclopedic. In the first paragraph, Yadon's rein orchid should appear with the other names in the first sentence. In the first paragraph of the "Description" section, comparisons with other orchids are overwhelming: "Along with most other orchids," "Like other orchids," "As a further shared attribute shared with practically all other orchids." These should be reduced down so that all the characteristics described depend on a single comparison. In "Reproduction and symbiosis", strike ", of course".
2. Follows a logical structure: The arrangement of sections is somewhat haphazard. "Reproduction and symbiosis" should probably be folded into "Description"; it expands on the contents of the third paragraph of the latter section. The next two sections should perhaps be combined into a single "Distribution and Habitat" section, as the topics go hand-in-hand (IMO). Indeed, parts of "Habitat" repeat information on the distribution.
3. Follows WP MOS: the taxobox should indicate its endangered status; there's a built-in parameter for it. The species name should never be capitalized, and botanical names should always be italicized. On the other hand, "Piperia" should not be italicized in a common name. Please also use consistent capitalization. Y. Piperia in the "Habitat" section should be changed to P. yadonii. Numbers followed by units or years followed by "BC" should be connected by a non-breaking space ( ), e.g., 20 centimeters. Also, the genus is usually linked in the infobox; perhaps the second paragraph of "Description" might provide material for a stub article on Piperia.
4. Jargon explained or wikilinked: Sympatric should be wikilinked."Carbon fixed" should be linked to carbon fixation, "Monterey submarine canyon" to Monterey Canyon., and "senesced" to senescence.
Accurate and verifiable: No apparent problems
Broad in coverage: No apparent problems
NPOV: No apparent problems
Stable: Yes
Images: Yes

Please fix the above problems and I would be happy to approve it for good article status. (And please don't feel slighted; I'm a fairly strict reviewer.) Choess 03:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your excellent and thorough analysis of this article Choess. I have endeavored to fix all items you mentioned with the exception of keeping "description" and "reproduction" sections" separate, which separation i think works well. I have also created the stub Piperia following your good suggestion. Let me know your thoughts. Regards. Anlace 16:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. The section merger is largely a question of taste, so no problem. Choess 17:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

This section is poorly written, and does not make sense. I have removed it in its entirety. Please check references, and write the geology in geological terms and the soils in soil terms, and read the references to understand what is wrong.

Yadon’s Piperia prefers sandy soils or even sandstone outcrops. These geological structures are typically on ancient marine terraces^[1] and underlain by clay hardpan. This wild orchid is typically found above bedrock of decomposed granite in soils that are acidic and highly leached. The organism’s geographic distribution is along the coastal region of Monterey County, California, although it does not occur above 150 meters in elevation. Piperia yadonii is normally found within about six miles from the Pacific Ocean, in a climate that is marine driven.

I can't find anything in the Jepson Manual that leads to this conclusion that "sandy soils and sandstone outcrops" are "typically on ancient marine terraces underlain by clay harpan" and that this soil profile is found on "bedrock of decomposed granite." If the bedrock is decomposed granite, or grus, it's not bedrock, but rather the C-horizon, at the very least, as bedrock is the unweathered rock, please look it up. I have to remove this article from GA status, as all of the sources should be checked and inaccurate information removed. KP Botany 02:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jepson Manual, Regents of the University of California, University of California Press (1993)

Picture

The Picture doesn't show the Plant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.137.35.3 (talk) 09:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this is a terrible photo. You can't even see which plant it is. Surely a better one can be found? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.252.183.253 (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 October 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was proposed in this section that Piperia yadonii be renamed and moved to Platanthera yadonii.

result:
Moved moreso as a technical request. See WP:RM/TR for future reference. Kudos to nom for your input, and Happy, Healthy Publishing! (nac by page mover) P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 17:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Links: current log • target log • direct move

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

Piperia yadonii → Platanthera yadonii – A taxon shift several years ago has transferred the former Piperia species into Platanthera (supported by WCSP). The Piperia page is already a redirect to Platanthera, so it would make sense that this page be moved to Platanthera yadonii. For some reason, though, the system isn't allowing me to move this page. I've already moved other former Piperias to existing pages that existed before only as redirects, so I'm not sure if the problem is that a Platanthera yadonii page already exists. I assume it is because the corresponding page already has some page history, although it now only exists as a redirect? JadeSpire (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's correct. If there is more than one edit, either on the subject pages (Edit histories: Platanthera elegans and Platanthera yadonii) or their talk pages then only admins and page movers can rename the articles. As you can see one page has two edits and the other even more. So these move requests are a good idea. See also the similar request at Talk:Piperia elegans#Requested move 31 October 2020. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 03:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1] Jepson Manual, Regents of the University of California, University of California Press (1993)

[1]