Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia sessilis/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 SandyGeorgia 04:15, 8 March 2010 [1].

---

Banksia sessilis

Banksia sessilis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC) and Hesperian (talk · contribs)

• Featured article candidates/Banksia sessilis/archive1

Here we go. Sorry to bore everyone, this is the tenth Banksia article to be nominated here. However, it is the first of the dryandra group and the article reads quite a bit differently from the others. Still, it has been massaged by Hesperian and me into a nice state (we think), and also has an interesting hidden conundrum.....(see if you can pick). Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

PS: Now I am confused - it's saying there's still a dablink to Charles Fraser which I can only see Charles Fraser (botanist)....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 16:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Link to the Alton piece [2] is dead. Fixed the one dab link (that's why you don't see it :) ). Alt text good. I did the GA review for this article, and it has been expanded a little more since. I believe it is comprehensive, well-referenced, and well-written, and would be a great FA. Ucucha 00:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for picking that up; I've replaced it with a Google Books link, which ought to be more robust. Hesperian 13:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Ucucha 14:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support and suggestions I couldn't see much wrong, but a couple of suggestions

• ...and both European Honey Bees and some native bees seek out and consume the nectar perhaps tidier as ...and bees, both European and native, seek out and consume the nectar
• ...precedence due to its earlier age perhaps "date" rather than "age"

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

change #2, definitely, I am deliberating on the other - weird as I can't recall anyone abbreviating EHB to European- , and European Honey - , sounds odd if I place it in the above sentence instead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments More to come later Sasata (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Flowering from winter through to late spring, it provides a key source of nectar and insects for honeyeaters in the cooler months, and species diversity and numbers are reduced in areas where there is little or no parrot bush occurring." A few things about this sentence bug me: the plant doesn't provide insects, but attracts them; species diversity could be linked; species "numbers" seems a too informal way to say population; "and species diversity … are" is ungrammatical.

(1) tried "it provides a key source of food—both the nectar and the insects it attracts—for honeyeaters" (2) linked to Biodiversity (3) yes it is tricky, but I tried rejigging Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• "Several species of honeyeater, and both European Honey Bees and some native bees" Needs tweaking; when I first read this I thought there were two species of European Honey Bees
• link specific name, horticulture, beekeeping (?)

(both now linked) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• "It is a prickly plant with little apparent horticultural interest" Is it just me, or does this sounds like the plant has no interest in horticulture?

(good pick up -changed "interest" to "potential") Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• The lead seems short relative to the size of the article

(have expanded a little with some key points) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• The description section seems really short too. How wide are the trees? How long/thick is the root? Why is there no pic of a full-grown tree? Does it have bark? What does it looks like? etc. I'm just comparing to the other Banksia FAs which seems to go into more details

(good points. I think we can add a bit I found some info on new growth, and (finally) a ref for one of the parrots which eats it, but nothing else straightaway. Funny. Hesperian might have more) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• why use blockquote for a quote so short? (in the "Discovery and naming" section)

No reason. Gone. Hesperian 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• "In that year, Colonial Botanist" why caps? Is it an official title?

I think so... but it may be safer, and still not incorrect, to lower-case it. Done. Hesperian 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• ""Shaving-brush flower" was still in use as late as the 1950s." the common name is in quotes here but in italics elsewhere in this section

Fixed. Hesperian 00:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• "A Descriptive Vocabulary of the Language of the Aborigines" this book title is given in caps, while another book title in the same section is in sentence case

Both are now in title case. Hesperian 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• "…which runs past the suburb of Melville which was where the type material was collected." remove a repetitive which

Fixed. Hesperian 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• links for Fremantle, Cape Leeuwin

Done. Hesperian 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• "requiring only that its soil be well drained." needs a hyphen for well-drained, no?

Yep, done. Hesperian 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• link fecundity, leaf litter, root rot

Done. Hesperian 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• that redlink to carboxylates could maybe lead to carboxylic acid, as the -ate just means it's a ionized form of -ic acid.

We have an article on carboxylate; the problem was we were linking to carboxylates. Fixed now. Hesperian 00:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• refs need a copyedit, some examples: page range display needs consistency (compare eg. #5 and #40); current ref#15 has pages listed twice; #49 needs a journal title; #61 is missing authors, etc.

(think I got 'em all. #49 is a cite web, not journal though) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• several accessdates haven't been included. I don't particularly care, but someone else might. Also, is the publisher for ref #26 really W. A. Hamer, or Robertson & Mullens, as claimed here?
• page #'s for ref #29, 71, 73?

I'll have to pop back into the library for 29 and 71. 73 is one of yours Cas? Hesperian 11:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny. I didn't add that one. Still, covered in more depth by the 1991 book I do have by the same author, so changed refs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• looks like there's some non-English titles that should have languages specified?

Done. Hesperian 11:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I added an image or two... or thirteen. I haven't sorted out the alt text for all of them yet. Hesperian 13:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Holy cow, where'd you uncover all these? The sequence ones are really cool :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I shot the sequence ones in September last. I shot the trunk and habit ones yesterday in response to comments here. Hesperian 00:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• The new images are excellent, and thank-you for taking some shots specially to satisfy my request! Currently, however, their placement in the description section makes them butt up against the taxobox, causing the text to be crammed into a 2-inch space at the left. Is there any chance the "Discovery and naming" section could be moved up before the description section? I think this would solve the problem. Or maybe just move them down a bit... but something should be done. Sasata (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think I see what you mean: I can reproduce it if I shrink my text. I've inserted a "clear:right;"; how does that look to you? Hesperian 03:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Ucucha has shuffled the deckchairs a little differently, which looks good on my screen, and I think it probably solves your issue too. Hesperian 04:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
      • It does look better. However, there's still a spot where half of the first paragraph is squished between the gallery and the taxobox. I notice that there's quite a bit of unused whitespace at the top and bottom of each image in the gallery, as well as unused whitespace at the bottom of each caption. If these could be tightened that'd be great (I'd do it myself, but don't know how to tweak gallery settings). Sasata (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
        • How is it now? Ucucha 04:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
          • The monitor I am viewing on has 1280 pixels across and the description section is nicely below the taxobox. Looks okay to me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
            • Yeah it's fine; I have a 28" wide screen, so am used to fitting three visible windows simultaneously, but it fits nicely if I widen my window a bit. Sasata (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Support All my major concerns have been dealt with; I'll trust Hesperian to add the page numbers when he gets the chance. Sasata (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I forgot! Thanks for the reminder; I've done it now. Hesperian 06:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Way too much of this Banksia stuff. Will support after Casliber fills out ALL the redlinked sessilis. Eusebeus (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Har har...(can't think of anything witty - too early in the am, and its only just gone autumn and I have a damn head cold :/). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• eeeek, lots of images, need an image reviewer! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Gnangarra and Hesp took a heap of them, others are >100 years old, but I guess and independent eye would be prudent :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

All seem fine to me. Most are by Hesperian (but Cas of course placed the only one he took himself in the lead position :-) ). One is by Edgar Dell from the 1930s and PD under Australian law. Two are from the early 1800s and clearly PD, and have the author indicated. Ucucha 04:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify the Dell one, iT fell into the public domain in Australia in 1980 under what was then a 50-year copyright term for photographs. Under the terms of the URAA, works that were in the public domain in their home country as of 1996 are in the public domain in the US. Hesperian 04:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support Comment A thorough coverage of the species, well illustrated. Needs clarification of one sentence - "Phosphite is not known to affect plant growth,but has been shown to reduce pollen fertility by up to 50%, or in some cases for more than a year." Melburnian (talk) 10:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it doesn't read very well, does it. Various experiments were performed in that study, involving different dosages and lead times. In some experiments, pollen fertility was reduced by up to 50%. In others, pollen fertility was reduced for more than a year. But it would not be true to say that "pollen fertility was reduced by up to 50% for more than a year". Nor would it be accurate to say that "pollen fertility was reduced by up to 50% and did not recover for more than a year", because these were distinct impacts measured under different experimental conditions. I changed it to "Phosphite is not known to affect plant growth, but has been shown to reduce pollen fertility: one study recorded fertility reductions of up to 50%, and, in a separate experiment, fertility reductions that persisted for more than a year." An improvement, but is it improved enough? Hesperian 11:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's better without the "or" construction. Melburnian (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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