Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adenanthos obovatus/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:38, 22 January 2011 [1].

Adenanthos obovatus

[edit]

Adenanthos obovatus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC), Hesperian (talk · contribs)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the Southwestern Australian floristic region (which has more flowering plants than Europe and Asia put together) deserves more recognition..this is a co-nom with Hesperian (talk · contribs) on a nice plant from his neck of the woods with a photo by Cygnis insignis (talk · contribs). PS: Its short and I'll answer promptly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


good point. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FA Criterion 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the differences with A. barbiger in flower color and leaf shape?
  • You don't know the specific Aboriginal language that "Cheeuk" comes from?

Ucucha 19:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any mention of which language it comes from, sadly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OR comment the source would have to be the Noongar language though which variant, theres are a couple of Dictionaries available one by the WA Museum Athroplogy dept and one by Rose Whitehurst both are available at the state library of WA, though less likely given its from the Albany region it maybe also covered in George Fletcher Moores work. Will see what I can dig up Gnangarra 04:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be wonderful :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This info comes from Nelson (1978) where it is cited as Sanderson pers. comm., so it is unlikely more details will be forthcoming. Hesperian 08:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked the map to show the Narrogin distribution (shown on source), hte other is described as possible and is not demarkated on source map (no it's not that other dot at the northern end of the range). Sorry about delay Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes! But that suggests the question: what is the other dot at the northern end? Ucucha 18:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the species definitely occurs at "the other" location but this is probably not a disjunction because the nearest other populations aren't all that far away. So it needn't be shown as a disjunction on this map. I'm not sure what to do about the northern dot, as this matches the florabase map, yet our sources don't mention a disjunction up there. Do we merge it on the grounds that our sources suggest it isn't disjunct, or follow the source map by keeping it separate? Hesperian 00:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is pretty close to the more continuous more coastal distribution immediately to the west of it. The Florabase map is made up of actual discrete herbarium records, and hence there are gaps where plants are known to grow but are not backed up by an official collection. Thus the separateness of the dot may mean that it occurs in between but nobody's sent material to the herbarium, or it isn't that far from others or something. As it is not discussed as disjunct, I am inclined to think it is not significantly so. We've done what we can based on the sources provided. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was thinking; which suggests that we could fairly merge the dot into the main range in our range map. Hesperian 08:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I looked at the article (was convinced by the "it's short" comment) and it reads very well - the article is easy to follow, and the prose is clear and efficient. There are no sentences which I can't understand, or which raise unanswered questions. I don't feel comfortable supporting, because I am well outside any area of expertise I have (and so can't comment on comprehensiveness, sourcing, etc.), but speaking as a layman, I have no complaints. Trebor (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Sources generally look first class. Just a few nitpicks:-

  • Ref 6: It should be noted that the source is in French
noted Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that Ref 8, to Nelson (1978), has a specific page number, whereas the other citations to this source, in ref 1, have a page range 303–406. Is there any reason why these citations should not have individual pages?
    • The quote isn't really necessary, so I've removed it and merged 8 into 1. I am open to splitting into separate Footnotes and References sections so that explicit page numbers can be given for each citation. Looking at it now.... Hesperian 07:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 23 is missing ISBN
having trouble with this one..googling keeps winding up with wrong copy of book Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hesperian 08:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cas, there's an ISBN finder in the userbox on my userpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Goody, I pinched it now. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verification checks limited to online sources. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs, 1 dead external link- this one is doa. --PresN 22:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fixed now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments Looking good. Below are some nitpicks:--Melburnian (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • > Taxonomy
  • Labillardière chose the specific name obovata for the species, from the Latin ob- ("inverse") and ovum ("egg"), in reference to the leaves of his specimen, which were egg-shaped, with the narrow end at the base. This leaf shape is often seen in this species. Seems a bit ponderous when he probably just thought (a French version of) "Hmmm - obovate leaves, think I'll call it obovata.
Wrigley and Fagg also spell out the inverse egg shape in their book. have tweaked the inline ref Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know you struck this already, but I found a source that explicitly says what you're saying—that he simply named it for its obovate leaves—so I've made that primary, and given the etymology of obovatus as a secondary matter. Hesperian 02:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, perfect. Thanks for persisting. Melburnian (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was rejected in 1924 Needs to clarify what was rejected.
clarified --> "The new species was rejected in 1924" Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • > Discovery and naming
  • Is the translation a quote? If not I would reword it along the lines of "By the sea, grow, in great abundance, Adenanthos cuneata, the softer-leaved Adenanthos sericea, and a species of the same genus with rounded leaves."
    • Yep, that's better. I've gone with that, except started with "On the seashore", since I believe "seashore" is a fairly literal translation of "bords de la mer". Hesperian 00:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • > Cultivation
  • I know this one is part of a quote, but what is "average" foliage? I wonder if it is average=standard or the Australian vernacular average=poor. Perhaps leave that part of the quote out?
    • Hmm, it is a bit vague. I don't know exactly what Newbey meant by that, nor do you, and probably nor does anyone else but Newbey. Yet a horticulturist's opinion of the horticultural value of the foliage is highly relevant here. Is it appropriate to withhold this information merely because we don't know exactly what it means? Or should we put it out there and let our readers make of it what they will? Personally I think the latter. Hesperian 00:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No mention of propagation by seed.
    • No, we couldn't find anything specific to this species. There's nothing in Australian Seeds, for example. The genus as a whole is known to have seeds that are difficult to collect and not easy to germinate. Hesperian 00:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • > Images
  • A habit shot (image of complete plant) would be nice, but not required for my support (FAC "3. Media" is pretty wishy-washy anyway).
I'll try and find one. Agree it'd be good to get one in the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • In the lead it says "inflorenscences...peak in spring", but then in the body it says they peak between August and October. I realize that this is spring in Australia, but it most definitely is not in the US, which makes the lead a little confusing...
heh, done.. :)
  • The lead is a bit short, and there is nothing in it summarizing the Discovery and naming, Infragenic placement or Hybrids sections. Could a couple of sentences on these subjects be added?
Added a couple of lines.
  • Infragenic placement, "most closely related to A. barbiger (now A. barbiger)," This seems to be implying a name change here, but if there is a difference between these two names I'm missing it.
oops - was barbigera not barbiger. clarified now Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hybrids, "from more than twenty individual plants. The discovery of it in such large numbers," 20 plants is considered a large number?
There are more species of flowering plants in the SW corner of WA than in Europe and Asia combined - the diversity is amazing, and 20 hybrid specimens is a significant number (often isolated). Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, looks good. Dana boomer (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I added an OCLC for the Newbey book (Worldcat can be your best friend), they had several volumes/publishing dates/publishers, so please check to make sure I found the correct one. Everything looks good, so adding my support. Dana boomer (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes (and I'd appreciate reviewers checking for this in the future): "Adenanthos obovatus, commonly known as basket flower or jugflower ... " but there is not a correct redirect or dab page for jugflower. I am not sure why the italics here: "Common names for this species include basket flower, glandflower, jugflower and stick-in-the-jug. " Also, why no redirects? What is sandplain sand? Good per WP:SEASON that winter is defined, but why not summer for consistency? "Adenanthos obovatus has been recorded as a source of nectar for the Honey Possum (Tarsipes rostratus) in winter and spring (June to September), from field studies in the Scott National Park, replaced by A. meisneri in the summer." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Adenanthos_obovatus/archive1&oldid=1078785521"