Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Acacia pycnantha/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 12:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Acacia pycnantha

edit
Nominator(s): Melburnian & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Australia's national floral emblem....also a weed in South Africa. We liked putting this together. Got a thorough GA review (thanks J Milburn!) - all input appreciated. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim

edit

A few quibbles before I support.

  • at Hale Conservation Park—If it's notable enough for redlink, why not write a one para stub to turn it blue?
started now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC):* flowering—"flower" seems more natural[reply]
tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • though did categorise a possible subspecies—"did" appears to be subjectless
subjected now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Birds greatly facilitate this and field experiments keeping birds away from flowers greatly
removed first adverb Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • though it is not clear that the parrots are feeding on them or some other factor is at play—I would have thought "whether" rather than "that"
aah yes. good catch. not sure hwat happened there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a host to rust fungus species in the genus—"It" is separated by at least two sentences from its presumed intended subject
tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, all looks good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No other queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Peter Coxhead

edit

I think the article is definitely close to FA status. A few rather random points:

  • The lead section is rather short. A bit more of a summary of the later sections of the article would be useful, e.g. expand a little on the native distribution and habitat, use as an ornamental plant, presence on stamps(?).
lead expanded now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A larger/clearer image of the phyllodes would be useful.
I'll track one down --Melburnian (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the hoverfly picture with a new similarly themed picture, but also including clear phyllode details. The new image is File:Acacia pycnantha phyllodes and fly 9276.jpg.--Melburnian (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd expect the alt text to be completed in the images in an FA.
alt text added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing on the structure of individual flowers; the text goes straight from "Each inflorescence is made up of 50 to 100 tiny flowers" to "The later developing pods" – I would have expected at least something on the flowers themselves inbetween.
flower structure added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was surprised that nitrogen fixation wasn't at least mentioned as a factor in its ability to grow in poor soils and its tendency to spread. (Strangely it's not mentioned in the Acacia article either, although a search for "acacia nitrogen fixing fixation" throws up many good sources.)
that's a tricky one - as there is always the dilemma over how much and what to have in a genus (vs. species) article. Surprised it's not in genus article. Will take a look around and digest.....and see what I come up with. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC) good stuff on N fixation found and added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would mention the season ("spring", "summer", etc.) as well as the months in appropriate places – these are helpful to readers in the "other" hemisphere.
added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter coxhead (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC) I'm very happy to support the article now; some interesting new information added! Peter coxhead (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and thanks for the constructive suggestions - enjoyed finding out some cool stuff Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

This --> Habit (biology) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport from Hamiltonstone

edit
  • In the description section, "phyllodes" links via a redirect to "petiole", and then the lead of that article defines petiole as "the stalk attaching the leaf blade to the stem". Later in the article there is some explanation of what happens in acacias, but all in all i found the situation a bit unsatisfactory. The article talks about phyllodes all the way through which, while technically correct, is a bit troublesome when the reader tries to remember that we are functionally talking about leaves. Can you at least add a phrase explaining what a phyllodes is, when it first occurs in the body text?
I was surprised phyllode was a redirect. Oh well, expanded a little and linked a bit differently now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "groups of 40 to 80 in axillary 2.5–9 cm (1–3 1⁄2 in)-long racemes". Can anything be done to create more of a picture for the reader here, since most will know the meaning of neither "axillary" nor "racemes".
this is hard - have removed some redundant text and expanded "axillary" - raceme is hard..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The later developing pods are flattish,..." Confusing - where's the text about the earlier developing pods?
whoops - tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They are released once the pods are fully ripe in December and January". I feel this would sound better if written as "They are released in December and January, when the pods are fully ripe"
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text about flowering is tricky. It starts in the second last sentence of the first para, then continues in the second para, so the para break seems wrongly placed. Then there's the rather confusing overlap of months, so it seems a bit as though the article is telling us two different versions of when flowering occurs. Is it all year round with a peak in July-August, or is it July to November?
whoops - split section in wrong place. tweaked now. the buds begin all year but most abort, except those initiated between November and May, which go on to mature between July and November. Would switching the order help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What on earth does "self-incompatible" mean?
That a plant can't fertilise itself - have linked and enlarged a little - do you think it's clear enough? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something weird with the various "and"s here: "It hosts bacteria, known as rhizobia, that form root nodules and where they metabolise and make nitrogen available in organic form and thus help the plant grow in poor soils."
I have rejigged the sentence now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Honeybees, native bees, ants and flies also visit nectaries, but generally only one or a few and do not come into contact with the flowers during this activity". only one or a few what - bees and ants, or nectaries? This sentence isn't that great - the but...and construction seems a bit clumsy.
On reflection, I think the "generally only one or a few" is not really needed so I removed it. --Melburnian (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those huge fractions in the imperial measurement conversions look really ugly, and I feel they impair readability - are there any other options?
at a previous FAC on Epacris impressa, fractions rather than decimal points were recommended for inches. I have removed the conversions where it gets down to mm. For some reason these larger-sized numerals are preferred than the more classical-looking ones. I am finding it difficult to please everybody with this.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide a link or meaning for "naturalised"?
Aha, I found Naturalisation (biology)... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Maybe another day this week... hamiltonstone (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...and become problematic in bushland near Hobart...." Problematic? What does that mean? I note the paragraph never uses the word "weed". Is that what is essentially meant? Maybe that word should be used...
Aha...reading too many secondary sources...changed to 'weedy', which is what it means Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think i have anything else. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hamiltonstone thanks for the input - sounds like you still feel a little underwhelmed by the prose, so if you see anything else let me know - I'll try and rustle up interest in another copyeditor. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, just haven't had time to read something end to end. Happy to support. I do have a question: in the section on cultivation, the text says it is short-lived, but there's nothing in the description about its lifespan. Is there anything in the literature other than "short-lived"? hamiltonstone (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Annoyingly I couldn't find anything. Wattles are generally fast-growing and short-lived plants - suspect 15 years give or take 5 years but can't say this without a source Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source for 15 to 30 years add added it.--Melburnian (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN37 and 41 have very broad page ranges - possible to narrow?
page ranges refined Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "http" is not the format - "html" would be, but it seems rather pointless to specify that at all given that it would be expected for web sources
removed unneeded parameters Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when you include locations and accessdates
should be all consistent now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN46: volume, issue, pages?
added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- "Several species of honeyeater, including the white-naped, yellow-faced,[34] New Holland,[35] and occasionally white-plumed, crescent,[34] white-naped honeyeaters and Eastern spinebills have been observed foraging". Guys, you've twice mentioned white-naped honeyeaters in this sentence, so are they regular or occasional foragers? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oops, missed that - I rejigged some stuff there and left a bit. fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 26 October 2014 (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/Acacia_pycnantha/archive1&oldid=632071870"