Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flora of Madagascar/archive1

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2018 [1].

Flora of Madagascar

Nominator(s): Tylototriton (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The land of the 900 orchids, the baobabs, the spiny thickets, and the traveller's tree, which suffers so much economically and ecologically, deserves a decent article on its flora! I've been working on this on and off for nearly two years. Did some last checks and think that it's not too far off from meeting the FA criteria now. Looking forward to your comments and criticism! Tylototriton (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Lingzhi

Note that just because a warning is displayed doesn't mean there's really any problem.. but I'm listing errors in case there's something we can improve:
de Flacourt, E. (1661). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
Du Petit Thouars, A.A. (1806). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
Baron, R. (1900–1906). Missing Publisher; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
Perrier de la Bâthie, H.P. (1921). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
Perrier de la Bâthie, H.P. (1936). Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
Lowry II, P.P.; Schatz, G.E.; Phillipson, P.B. (1997). Caution: Missing pagenums for book chapter?
Jeannoda, V.H.; Razanamparany, J.L.; Rajaonah, M.T.; et al. (2007). CS1 maint: Unrecognized language; Missing archive link;
Groupe des Spécialistes des Plantes de Madagascar (2011). Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (28 with; 1 without); Missing Publisher; Missing ISBN;
Moat, J.; Smith, P. (2007). Missing ISBN; Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've added the missing ISBN/OCLC/page numbers and fixed the language for Jeannoda et al. 2007. "Groupe des Spécialistes des Plantes de Madagascar (2011)" has no publisher location evident from the document. Tylototriton (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potential issues:
Bourriquet, G. (1970). Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.);
Morel, J.-P. (2002). "Philibert Commerson à Madagascar et à Bourbon" (PDF) Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.);
Baron, R. (1900–1906). Missing Publisher; Missing Identifier/control number, e.g. OCLC;
"Le muséum à Madagascar" (PDF) Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.); Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added ISSN for Bourriquet (1970). No identifiers available for Morel (2002) and "Le muséum à Madagascar". Baron (1900–06) is in fact a collection of fascicles published in different journals. As this is detailed in Dorr (1987), I removed the reference. Tylototriton (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest scaling up the topographical map
File:Seal_of_Madagascar.svg: what is the copyright status of the original design? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Scaled up the map (not too much I hope). Not sure about the copyright status of the seal image; I somehow thought official seals such as these were public domain anyway... But if there is a doubt, the image is not that important – I can replace it with one of the plant itself. Tylototriton (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I finally replaced the seal with this image whose copyright status should be fine. Tylototriton (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, replaced it with yet another, better image, also used in Madagascar. Tylototriton (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From FunkMonk

Looks very interesting, will review soon. Pinging Maky, who might want to have a look as well (if still active). FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mention extinctions here and there, perhaps state how many species are known to be extinct in all?

I didn't come across any figure or estimate for plants, and didn't find much information on fossils. Strong contrast to the extinct megafauna...

"most of them from fossil deposits" So are they fossilise,d or do they just live in these deposits? If the former, are they extinct?

The source says it is unknown whether some are still extant. Added this.

"it was mainly French naturalists that documented Madagascar's flora in the following centuries." Needs source.

Don't think a have a source that says this explicitly. To me, this is a general introduction statement which is referenced in the following paragraphs.

I think you can just use one or two of the sources that follow. FunkMonk (talk)

23:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Done. Tylototriton (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Edible mushrooms, including endemic species, are collected and sold locally (see above, Diversity and endemism: Fungi)." Seems this needs a source.

Ref added.

"The traditional slash-and-burn agriculture (tavy), practised for centuries, with a growing population today accelerates the loss of primary forests (see below, Threats and conservation)." This too.

Ref added.

"Pierre Sonnerat visited the country from" Is this an appropriate way to describe the island at the time?

Probably not. Changed to "island".

"specimens were later worked up by" Not sure what "worked up" means here.

It means they described them; replaced this.

"Contemporary research" It might be better to call it 21st century research or similar. Then the "Nineteenth century to present" section should also be renamed, though the title didn't really make sense before either. It indicates that "present" comes before "contemporary".

Changed the section titles. Not sure if a title can begin with a number, so I left "Nineteenth to twentieth century" instead of "19th to 20th".

Have any plants coevolved with animal species? I'm thinking the large extinct lemurs or small hippo species, for example, might have influenced the evolution of some plants? Googling it brings up some interesting articles, so this might be an oversight:[2][3] The first is based on this journal article, which should certainly be incorporated:[4]

Thanks FunkMonk for your comments! I'll go through them but might take me a couple of days. Didn't know that article on lemur–plant coevolution, this might indeed merit a short paragraph, thanks! There's actually quite a debate on whether there were grazers among the extinct megafauna – which would imply prehistoric grasslands... I'll see what I can out together this week. Tylototriton (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, note I still need to read most of the rest of the article, so more comments will come. FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few changes, see my response to the individual points above. Found three more interesting sources on coevolution and added a paragraph in "Origins and evolution". Also found a more recent "chronology of prehistoric Madagascar" and added a few bits in the introduction of "human impact". Tylototriton (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"in the Madagascar lowland forests", "the Madagascar subhumid forests" Why italics for these and other English terms? You don't do this in the pie chart caption, for example.

True, wasn't very consistent. I've now put the names of vegetation types or ecoregions in quotation marks at first mention.

"It is unprotected but the local population considers it sacred." Which keeps them from chopping it down, I assume?

Yes, probably; only I don't have access to the source anymore to check if it says that...

"hunting to extinction a megafauna" The megafauna?

Corrected.

"with first evidence for human presence" Could be stated where these humans came from? Since you also mention Europeans later.

Mentioned that they were either African or Asian as per source (still debated to my knowledge).

You have internal links and references to other sections of the article, and tough I don't know if this is discouraged, it is certainly not standard.

I've removed the links but kept the references, I think they're useful.

You are very inconsistent in how you list scientific names; sometimes it is in parenthesis, other times it is after a comma.

Now all scientific names should be in parentheses; also linked scientific names consistently now instead of common names.

"A number of plants with native to Madagascar" Looks incorrect.

Corrected.

"over six million hectares" Convert.

Done.

"around 10% of the land surface are protected" Is?

Corrected.

Modifications done; see responses above. Tylototriton (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - reads well to me now, and also one of the visually nicest articles I've seen! FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, FunkMonk! Tylototriton (talk) 10:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

"The flora of Madagascar counts more than 12,000 species" "The flora of Madagascar consists of more than 12,000 species" sounds better to me.

Reworded as suggested.

" Dry forest and woodland are found" This sounds a bit odd, as if forest and woodland are different. I would expand to say "succulent woodland".

Well, forest and woodland are different, the latter has an open canopy and usually a grass understory. The distinction has not always been clear but has been made more and more in recent literature, and is important in Madagascar: woodland has regular natural fires but forest doesn't.

"Forest fire" has over 300,000 hits in Google Scholar. I think the distinction you make must be a specialist one few readers would know about, and you need to spell it out if you want to distinguish between the two. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are forest fires of course, but they don't usually occur every 1-3 years as in savannah/woodland. I admit the distinction is less clear-cut as I would like; I still prefer keeping the two in that phrase of the lead as they link to two distinct ecoregions. Added "succulent" before woodlands to make the distinction clearer. Tylototriton (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"One of the most productive explorers of Malagasy wildlife in the 19th century was French naturalist Alfred Grandidier." "productive explorer" does not sound right to me. How about "One of the most prolific writers about Malagasy wildlife in the 19th century was French explorer and naturalist Alfred Grandidier."

"Prolific writer" doesn't really reflect the fact that he's actually travelled and collected a lot; what about "Preeminent worker on Malagasy wildlife"?

How about "French naturalist Alfred Grandidier was a preeminent nineteenth century authority on Malagasy wildlife."Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me, made the change. Tylototriton (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the British missionary Richard Baron" "the British missionary and botanist Richard Baron"

Agree, but I added "naturalist" rather than "botanist" as he's also done some herpetology and geology.

"During the French colonial period" I would specify between 1897 and 1958.

Done.

"also present with a dependency in Madagascar" What is a dependency in this context?

The source says nothing more than "permanent base", don't know if this is really more precise?

It would be much clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Tylototriton (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The arrangement of the sections looks wrong to me, with exploration between plant and vegetation types. I suggest 1 origins, 2. Diversity, 3. Vegetation types, 4 Exploration, 5 Human impact. Of course, other editors may disagree.

I prefer describing the diversity first, before talking about its botanical history and evolutionary origins. I'd be OK however to move the "exploration" section down, after "origins" and before "human impact". What do other editors suggest?

I finally moved the "exploration" section down, think this makes sense. Tylototriton (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"It is dominated by the namesake tapia tree" eponymous is better than namesake.

Done.

"given their divergences estimated well after Gondwana break-up" This does not sound right. Maybe "given that they are estimated to have diverged from continental groups well after Gondwana broke up"

Reworded as suggested.

"The English missionary Richard Baron (see above, Exploration and documentation: Nineteenth to twentieth century) already described more than one hundred native plants used locally and commercially." This is not needed. You can just say "Barron described more than one hundred native plants used locally and commercially."

This will depend on the final section order...

Made the change, but added the century for context. Tylototriton (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your comments, Dudley! Responses above. Tylototriton (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon

Nice article. I love the illustrations. Just a few comments:

Today, humid forest including the lowland forests, is --> something doesn't work for me here, maybe the commas, maybe the singular then plural then singular, probably both.

Used plural and added a comma, should be better now?

662 species/77% --> I think a – looks better than a /

Agree, done.

central highlands and Central Highlands both occur in the article. Intentional?

No; should all be lowercase now.

highest elevation (2,876 m (9,436 ft)) --> that's a lot of ). Perhaps something like this: highest elevation in the country, namely 2,876 m (9,436 ft)

Done.

[14][15][16][17][18][19][20] --> I think one reference to the index page will suffice

I agree that seven refs are not very elegant, but as the chapters have all been cited individually, I think this is more correct, and it saves us une uncecessary additional ref.

6,000 mm --> and in inches?

Cvt added.

Trees other than tapia include the endemic Asteropeiaceae, Sarcolaenaceae, and others, --> that "and others" is not needed I think, as include suggests that already

Done.

around 150–160, and from the Indian subcontinent 84–91 million years ago --> I think in the lead this is done more elegantly, avoiding the question 150-160 AD?

Now done as in the lead.

now–separate island, which later contracted to what is now --> do these two uses of now refer to the same period? or is one today and one in the past?

Actually the whole two first sentences of the paragraph were not very elegant, tried to restructure this.

established since the Oligocene --> during?

No – they probably couldn't evolve before, but some may be much more recent, see following sentences.

Several hypotheses exist --> I found this one paragraph a bit too short. Given the uniqueness and abundance it warrants a lengthier description, methinks

Thanks for motivating me on this – I found two nice examples of plant diversification from dry habitats (Euphorbia) and humid forests (tree ferns). As the section is quite long now, I subdivided it into Paleogeography and Species evolution.

nineteenth century --> earlier you used a different notation, 17th, and later 21st. Should be consistent across entire article

I enjoyed reading it, thank you for bringing it here. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outriggr already fixed this (thanks!).

Thanks, Edwin. Sorry, I'm pretty busy atm, might take me a while before I can address your points. Tylototriton (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Worked through your points, @Edwininlondon: responses above. Tylototriton (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comments from Outriggr

Support. When I returned to WP a few months ago I took an interest in this article, already at FAC. I copyedited it a fair bit. (Which is to say I was and am not "involved" with the article.) Since this FAC is still open, I'm going to add my support now. I find the quotations around the WWF's eco-regions awkward, but I guess they serve a purpose. They are not entirely consistent, and should be checked. For example, The driest part of Madagascar in the southwest features the unique Madagascar spiny forests (WWF). By the current logic, the ecoregion should also be in quotes, in which case it would be better rephrased as the WWF's "spiny forests" ecoregion. It would ease reading if the "Madagascar" was removed from the visible part of the link in all cases, and then add "ecoregion" after, to help the reader understand why quotes are being used in the first place. An example: The WWF classifies the northern part of this vegetation as +the "~~Madagascar~~ dry deciduous forest"[16] +ecoregion and the southern part, including the northernmost range of Didiereaceae, as "~~Madagascar~~ succulent woodlands". But you know, quotes may not be needed at all, because "Western sub-humid forest" occurs inland in the southwest at the start of a para is still awkward. Outriggr (talk) 02:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your copy-editing work, Outriggr! I've reworked the Vegetation types section as you suggested, with ecoregions now consistently in quotations but "Madagascar" removed. The paragraph is complicated because there's the vegetation types in the Atlas of the Vegetation of Madagascar and the WWF ecoregions. Both are different concepts; they often overlap but are not the same, so I think it's important to clearly mention them, even if that sometimes produces a little awkward wording. Tylototriton (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Much better, thanks. Outriggr (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: I think we're just waiting for a response from Edwininlondon. Sarastro (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With the caveat that I am not an expert, I support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tylototriton: I glanced at this to see if it was ready to promote, but I'm finding odds and ends that I shouldn't be at this stage. See my few edits, but there are more—for example under Vascular plants, why is the parenthetical after Malvaceae not consistent with the others? Please go over this with a fine-tooth comb for MoS and consistency. --Laser brain (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: Thanks, I'll go through it again this weekend. No time before, sorry... Tylototriton (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Went through it and removed the remaining inconsistencies, I hope? Tylototriton (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.