Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Drosera regia/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 Karanacs 22:23, 20 January 2010 [1].

Drosera regia

[edit]
Nominator(s): Rkitko (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article status because I've worked on expanding it and have exhausted the resources I have to make this a comprehensive article. I believe it's ready for featured article status based on the recent expansion and tidying I've done. I hope to improve upon it further with the comments left here. Rkitko (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me now, I tweaked alt caption because of suspect grammar. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The specific epithet regia - fine, but what is the etymology of Drosera?
  • a reference to regal position in the genus - word missing?
  • operculate despite the dabcheck missing it, this is a dab page
  • of the most ancient characteristics within the genus. Some of these characteristics... - can one of the "characteristics" go?
  • the most endangered Drosera species threatened with extinction in the wild. reads oddly, perhaps the most endangered Drosera species, since it is threatened with extinction in the wild.
  • It is cultivated, however, by carnivorous plant enthusiasts - "however" is meaningless padding. Don't vegetarian plant enthusiasts grow it? Perhaps needs tweaking to remove unintended but amusing ambiguity.
  • Most issues fixed. The etymology of Drosera is discussed on the genus page. Should it be repeated on each species article? Operculum (botany) isn't a dab page; it says it's a stub article, but it's more like a set-index article. And I'm a vegetarian carnivorous plant enthusiast! I can't think of a way to fix the ambiguity, though I think it's understood through the previous usage of "carnivorous plant" that carnivorous modifies plant and not enthusiast. "Carnivorous plant" is a phrase used frequently to described these plants, so it should be understood (e.g. the International Carnivorous Plant Society is not a wholly carnivorous society, nor is the Carnivorous Plant Newsletter a meat-eating print publication). If you still think these need to be addressed, I'll take another stab at it. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem with the ambiguity really. Personally I always repeat genus etymology in the species' articles for completeness, and to avoid readers having to follow a link to find out what the other half of the binomial means. I accept that other editors may take a different view, and at least it is a conscious decision and not an oversight Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the first convert template to 1 decimal point (0.8) to match the other and I used the convert template with the abbreviation for the 500-900 m figure. Fixed the "neighbor" spelling to BE. Notice any other AE spellings that need to be fixed? It's difficult for me to notice them. I always forget at least one when fixing the easy (color --> colour) and then it ends up looking inconsistent. Do you have a sharper eye for AE to BE spellings? Your welcomed meddlings are appreciated and look fine. Rkitko (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Current ref 11 (Schlauer) lacks a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?
  • Current ref 14 (Rice) needs a page number
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection. Thanks for the help identifying the full journal title. I couldn't for the life of me figure it out. I updated the article with the full English name. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata (talk) 07:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I haven't read any of the above commentary so forgive me if I'm repeating anything.[reply]

Replies after each comment. For the simple ones without comment, I just struck them. Thanks! Diff of all changes: diff Rkitko (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second and third sentences of the lead contain etymological information that's only mentioned in the lead, but not in the body of the article.
  • The information doesn't seem to fit anywhere in the body of the article. Would it go under Description? A new Etymology section would certainly be too small and just repeat the information in the lead. I'm working on getting some more information from the earliest description of the species that may help that (my library was stubborn when I requested this info through ILL before).
  • Well, it needs to go somewhere in the article... how about just sticking it into taxonomy? It seems to fit in with "botanical history". Should also mention the common name in that section as well, as it's currently only in the lead. How about making subsection "Evolutionary relationships" into a section (could be renamed "Phylogeny", or not)? Sasata (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (p.s., the lead always repeats information in the article, so I don't think one needs to worry about that.) Sasata (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I worked it in to the taxonomy section and updated based on information I got from the original species publication. Common name mentioned. I originally had "Evolutionary relationships" as an h2 section on its own, but someone else made it a subsection. And it discusses more than phylogeny, so I think I'll stick to the current name. More replies below. Thanks again for a very thorough review and all the specific comments. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*in the lead, suggest wlinking "molecular data" to something

  • "The leaves and tentacles, which are specialized stalked glands on the leaf surface" unclear - what are specialized stalk glands, the tentacles, or the leaves and tentacles?
  • Now reads: "The tentacles of all Drosera species are specialized stalked glands on the leaf's upper surface that produce a sticky mucilage." Clearer?
  • "...and can bend dramatically around the prey." What is it about the bending that makes it dramatic?
  • Now reads: "...that respond to captured prey by bending to surround it."
While I'm here, is there any more information on the biochemical/physiological mechanism the plant uses to accomplish this bending motion? Sasata (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"In its native fynbos habitat" this is the lead, so maybe a short explanation of fynbos would be in order

  • Now reads: "...compete for space with native marsh grasses and low evergreen shrubs." Fynbos is linked and explained in the text below. I'd rather not get too much into it in the lead.
  • "The lower altitude site is estimated to consist of approximately 50" ->"to have about"
  • "...and tapering to a filiform point." I cannot find the definition of filiform in the linked articled
  • Definition for filiform added to leaf shape. I've always been curious; in this case, would it also be acceptable to link to wikt:filiform?
I often link to wiktionary for technical terms in my own FACs, and haven't heard any negative remarks about the practice. Sasata (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • link dormancy

*"Plants go dormant during the colder season..." What month? Dates are given for dormancy breaking and flowering, so might as well give this info too.

  • No reference I've read has specified the month they go dormant, though one notes a typical growing season from October to April. Sometimes. I added this information.

*"...which possess root hairs along the terminal 15 cm (6 in)." This number means little to me without an idea of the typical total length of the root.

  • The references I've used did not describe total root length, which is of course relative to the size of the plant.
...which leaves me wondering if roots hairs are always on the last 6 inches of the root, or if it's proportional to the root length. Oh well, if it's not in the sources, what can ya do? Sasata (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, even the original publication doesn't really discuss the root system. A recent paper has gone to great lengths to describe the root system of Drosophyllum, noting that this is often a subject omitted when describing a species for fear of endangering rare species even more. Rkitko (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*"Studies have shown that the uniquely operculate pollen shed in tetrads (groups of four), a characteristic that is shared with the related Dionaea muscipula (the Venus flytrap) and Aldrovanda vesiculosa, is incompatible with genetically-similar plants." I'm struggling to fully understand this sentence; is the shared characteristic the fact that it's operculate, the fact that it's shed in tetrads, or the combination of both? Does "incompatible" mean it cannot fertilize? Does "genetically similar" imply the same species?

  • I've attempted to clarify: "Studies have shown that the uniquely operculate pollen shed in tetrads (groups of four), characteristics that are similar in the related Dionaea muscipula (the Venus flytrap) and Aldrovanda vesiculosa, is incompatible with genetically-similar clones, failing to produce seed when plants are self-fertilised."

*"Seeds are linear and ornamented..." ornamented with what?

  • Seed ornamentation is just a morphology term, meaning the seed isn't featureless. The references used don't describe the type of ornamentation, so I just tried to clarify what is meant by ornamentation.

*"Drosera regia shares other features with D. arcturi, especially the robust form from Tasmania.[2][3][6]" Three refs to convince me that it shares some features, but it doesn't tell me what these shared features are? I feel cheated!

  • Clarified. Two of those refs were for the first sentence, oops! I added a few more characteristics.

*"It has a diploid chromosome number of 2n = 34, which is unusual for the genus Drosera and closer to the diploid chromosome number of the Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula)," what is usual for the genus? What's the chromosome number of the flytrap?

  • Gosh, I've been working on that for a while. I added a new ref and some more explanation. I've been confused by the conflicting chromosome number reports of Dionaea, so I just included the uncertainty.
  • relink endemic in Dist & Hab

*How about a distribution map?

  • I have seen no map produced (probably due to the species' scarcity, don't want to encourage the poachers, do we?), so I'd be wary of producing an incorrect one. Add to that the lack of clear, reliable location data beyond the variably spelled "Bain's kloof", "Bainskloof", "Baineskloof" or even "Baviaanskloof" valley, I've got a very, very vague sense of where this species is located. I'm tracking down the original publication of the species which might help (sometimes these older publications are more specific).

*neighbouring = Brit English

  • It's a South African species, so BE should be used. I'm used to AE and just started trying to fix all the spellings to BE, so I hope I don't miss any.
Search for "ized" and switch to "ised" to catch a few more. Sasata (talk) 16:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rkitko (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • wlink morphological
  • "D. regia is found in a natural fynbos vegetation" Again, I think it would be worthwhile to use a few words to describe this habitat.
  • link grasses (maybe) and sedges (definitely)
  • there are some missing non-breaking spaces in the Latin names in the Taxonomy section; might be worthwhile to recheck the entire article for this

*"A. A. Obermeyer suggested..." who is this?

  • Linked (new article) and added "South African botanist"
  • wlink taxonomy

*"Phylogenetic analysis of morphological characteristics and gene sequences has supported the basal relationship long suspected of D. regia," Basal relationship with what? And link basal (phylogenetics)... ok I see it linked later in the paragraph

  • wikilink to basal moved up; clarified to "basal position within the genus long suspected of D. regia"

*somewhere "relict" should be clarified or defined

  • Now reads: "...relict characteristics, ones it likely shared with the common ancestor of all Drosera such as the operculate pollen,"
  • "on the basis of" -> "based on"
  • link molecular data again'; asexual propagation; root cutting
  • All book refs must have page numbers; should have ISBN as well

*not a fan of citation templates? I've grown fond of seeing parentheses around years, and bolding of volume #'s. Consider switching to the dark side.

  • Nope. Can't stand them. I prefer the formatting I've used.
  • sources in foreign languages must have language specified.
  • current ref #14 has no title, and I suspect it's foreign language

:*Now ref #15, not in a foreign language, title added

  • ref #15 needs pp., endash, and ISBN. How come USA is specified in the publisher here and not ref #1?
  • Already had page numbers (p. 84-85), endash fixed throughout article, ISBN added. USA added to ref #1.
  • Sorry, I meant page ranges (i.e. more than 1 page) should have "pp." instead of "p."

*any chance of including DOI's (if available) for the journal articles?

  • Only one, it seems. And an ISSN for another. Journal articles are either too old or the journal doesn't/didn't use DOIs then.
  • not a fan of the current image placement (three images stacked on right hand side)... how about a Feng shiu shakeup?
  • I prefer images on the right. Images on the left always feel like they're breaking the flow of the article and you have a harder time of making sure the text isn't squeezed between them. I see no problem with the layout as is.

Support I leave my support with two final suggestions: Sasata (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "2n = 20 is considered to be a possible base number for the genus that all other chromosome numbers in most other species has been derived from by polyploid speciation (successive doublings of the chromosomes)." This sentence needs a bit of work—it's somewhat unwieldy, and it starts with a number.
  • "A second population was located in 1926 about Template:6.5 away below" something funny going on there
    • I worked on clarifying the chromosome description. Any better now? I also took care of the template:6.5 issue. I had just forgotten the template name (convert). --Rkitko (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I'm mostly satisfied with the prose, other than the items below. I'm mostly opposing on 1b and possibly 1c; cultivation is not treated thoroughly and I'm not satisfied that a blurb from the ICPS newsletter is the best we can do on the research side.
    • "this is often cited as an indication of these two species' ancient lineage." Avoid using "this" as a vague reference to some previous concept or term. This what? This similarity?
    • "Studies have shown that the uniquely operculate pollen shed in tetrads (groups of four), characteristics that are similar" Why "characteristics" plural? Isn't this one characteristic?
    • Also, "genetically-similar clones" seems an oxymoron, considering the linked article explains that a clone is genetically identical and that is my general understanding of the word.
      • Good catch. Not quite an oxymoron, but I had attempted to clarify on Sasata's point above what was meant by "genetically-similar". Does simply deleting "genetically-similar" do the trick, or is more required to put "clones" in context? Rkitko (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Exceptions to this include the Australian, New Zealand and Southeast Asian Drosera, which have chromosome numbers ranging from 2n = 6 to 64." Again, this what? This chromosome count?
    • There is not sufficient explanation of what conditions cause D. regia to fail to flower or go dormant. You mention that they don't go dormant sometimes, and that under Clemens' conditions they neither flower nor go dormant. Why is that?
      • We're at the mercy of what's available in the references. There's no explanation given anywhere in reliable sources. Rumor and speculation on the carnivorous plant listserv is that lack of a sufficient cold period halts flowering, but this is hardly reliable. I trust the source, but it's never been a rightfully published observation. As for dormancy, the only mention of it not going dormant was frustratingly vague, thus so is my description. I do believe I've exhausted the available literature on that topic. The natural variation of plant populations is often just assumed, and so no explanation for why some plants don't go dormant some years isn't heavily investigated. --Rkitko (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is not sufficient explanation of the background and history of cultivation. You mention that carnivorous plant enthusiasts cultivate them, and you have a couple sentences about "Big Easy". But, how did this cultivation come about? Did someone have to travel to Africa and bring back a plant or a clipping? There is a bit more information available in the linked source, but how do we know Clemens' account is reliable? He purchased it from "Marie's Orchards" but that's a pretty long leap from a valley in South Africa. Do all enthusiasts have plants related to Clemens'? If not, what do they have? Etc.
      • Again, unknown, or at least not published by reliable sources. Again, the listserv discussion indicate all cultivated plants are the same clone, but there's no published history of cultivation. I agree it must have come from South Africa at some point, but we just don't have the information on where. I also wasn't comfortable saying this because again, I have no reliable sources to cite in the article, but this species is rather rare in cultivation. It's not offered all that often by carnivorous plant nurseries and most people get it from trading. Find me a source that says that and I'll put it in! But the truth is, there really isn't that much to say about cultivation. I'll try to add a bit more from the linked source as you suggest, but I wanted to avoid the section becoming a how-to guide (WP:NOTHOWTO) on how to grow the species. There is another source on cultivation of the species (Janssens, J. (1986) "In vitro propagation of sundew, Drosera regia Stephens"), but my academic library was unable to encourage a lending library to send it or make a photocopy pdf. I'll work on the rest of your points above in a bit. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough on both points. I don't mind checking for sources though, if I can offer any assistance. What library databases usually carry the relevant academic journals that might carry information about cultivation? --Andy Walsh (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure if there are any. I do believe I've tracked down most, if not all, references related to this plant. I was only unable to obtain the Janssens (1986) article. I just put in an e-mail request to the director of the ILL system at the college I work at to see if she can perhaps try again. I have access to JSTOR, EBSCO, FirstSearch, etc. and I haven't run across anything that would clear up these points in the article. I forgot to mention that others since Clemens published his cultivar have reported getting 'Big Easy' to flower, but it's only been chatter in the e-mail listserv. I do wish someone would publish a new article on its cultivation so I could cite it! There is an earlier Carnivorous Plant Newsletter article by Bob Ziemer link that I initial rejected because it's really just his first-hand account of his growth conditions and experience, which may not apply to all cultivation efforts. Coincidentally, I got my D. regia as a gift from Mr. Ziemer. I'll work on this and provide a diff with my attempt for your review. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think you're correct about the sources after digging around for a while. I've withdrawn my opposition based on 1b and 1c, and will re-examine the prose after your tweaks. The plant is certainly interesting! --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thank you for your helpful comments. I've addressed some of the above in this diff. I also added a bit more of the cultivation info. Check over that and make sure the prose is acceptable. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regarding distribution and habitat, is there any further information available on:
    • Legislative protection or recognition of the species being endangered by South African authorities
    • Status of land with populations - private land or reserve
    • Management of populations Melburnian (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excellent points. The only mention of legislative recognition is by the Andreas Fleischmann reference, [2], a forum discussion, but Andreas is a published expert on the genus. I've cited him specifically and only for the account of his trip there to verify the "50 mature plants" bit in the article. In an earlier post in the same thread, [3], Andreas mentions, "This plant is protected by Western Cape Nature Conservation Laws Amendment Act since 1992, and the protection was reconfirmed in 2000," but I have been unable to find Drosera regia listed in the text of that act that I could find. He also mentions that the plant grows within the borders of the "Baineskloof Nature Reserve", which doesn't seem to exist ([4] ?) or is perhaps misspelled. He would know better than I would, but I can't find the proper documentation. There doesn't appear to be any management of the population. Reintroduction of fire would be key, but no written record of any effort like this exists, at least as far as I've searched. None of the other general references I have discuss these aspects of the species' conservation and I don't feel comfortable citing Andreas' account for anything other than the personal observation of the population size. I hope that clarifies. I'll go back and look more for this info, but I doubt I'll find anything I can cite. Rkitko (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2010 (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/Drosera_regia/archive1&oldid=1138459015"