Talk:Aquilegia sibirica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 15:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Aquilegia sibirica, the Siberian columbine
Aquilegia sibirica, the Siberian columbine
  • ... that the Siberian columbine has been crossed with another species in the genus Aquilegia to determine the gene behind the genus's nectar spurs? Source: "POPOVICH, encoding a C2H2 zinc-finger transcription factor, plays a central role in the development of a key innovation, floral nectar spurs, in Aquilegia". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 117 (36). National Academy of Sciences. 8 September 2020.

Created by Pbritti (talk). Self-nominated at 23:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Aquilegia sibirica; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • New enough, long enough, within policy. The hook works, and as far as I can tell with my limited understanding of biology, it is correctly supported by the source cited inline. QPQ is done. Image is public domain. Should be good to go. Columbines are my favourite flowers so I was happy to do this review. Yakikaki (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Yakikaki: Hey—columbines are my favorite, too! Thanks for the review! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources to consider before GAN[edit]

Hey Pbritti, just wanted to make you aware of the Biodiversity Heritage Library entry for this species. There is a wealth of taxonomic and ecological information in the documents there that should probably be included in the article for it to meet the "broad" requirement of GA. If you'd like to work together to trawl through the sources and expand it, I'd be happy to work collaboratively on this article. Just let me know! Fritzmann (message me) 01:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzmann2002: Thanks for the heads up! I've started filtering out some of the sources there that don't provide additional context but won't be able to add significant content to the article for a day or so. This is a wonderful resource! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: I started the GA review, but then saw this exchange of comments. Would you prefer to add something to the article before I start the review, or should I dive into it? Let me know if you want some days to expand before I dig in. Regards, Yakikaki (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(And with "this exchange of comments" I of course mean the comments under "Additional sources to consider before GAN" above. Don't know why my comment ended up down here. Yakikaki (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
@Yakikaki: Thanks for taking up the review! I'd appreciate maybe another 24 hours before you kick off the review. I've picked out 80% of the suitable material from the sources listed above. I actually inserted a minor error (stemming from dated scientific classification) yesterday that I'll need to correct, too. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, take the time you need. Yakikaki (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yakikaki: OK, I think it's in a state worth reviewing! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Aquilegia sibirica/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Pbritti (talk · contribs) 18:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Yakikaki (talk · contribs) 21:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did the DYK review of this article, but I'm happy to take on this review as well. I'll get back in the coming days with my first comments. Regards, Yakikaki (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, I had to make some basic corrections to bring parts of the article into compliance with the guidance at WP:Wikiproject Plants. In particular, species names are italicized wherever they appear, including within references. Also, Wikiproject Plants requires the use of Plants of the World Online for all flowering plants, including determining if the taxon is accepted, its synonyms, and its distribution. Abductive (reasoning) 11:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment, a glance at the 80 articles on plants considered to have met GA seems (to me at least) to demonstrate the difficultly of raising a plant article to GA. There are about 400,000 accepted plant taxa (and only 124,475 WP:PLANTS articles currently in existence), meaning that so far only 1 in 5000 is a GA. This article is currently quite short compared to the existing plant GAs, and lacks many of the sections mentioned at WP:WikiProject Plants/Template. Abductive (reasoning) 11:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Abductive:, would you like to make the review instead? Or were you just providing some comments? I was planning on starting the review in earnest later this weekend. Yakikaki (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given these comments, Yakikaki, I would encourage you to continue the review. However, I am currently bring the article into compliance with these WikiProject standards (which are distinct from the standards for a GA). ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'm also happy to look over the article again Yakikaki, since I've got experience with plant GAs. After you complete the review I can just do a quick sweep to check on any of the weird quirks that plant articles sometimes require. I also encourage continuing to add any information you guys come across as well! Fritzmann (message me) 17:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fritzmann: thanks, that would be very appreciated as I have very little expertise in botany. I'll start by making a general review, I hope to be able to come back later today or tomorrow. @Pbritti: do what you need to do, I'll start looking at it as soon as I can though, and we can sort it out as we go. Best, Yakikaki (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great all around. I'm actually extremely excited that four editors are invested in improving a single plant article. This was a spur-of-the-moment article I made after visiting a botanical garden last year and now it's grown into something I'm actually somewhat proud of (regardless of whether it passes GA). Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First observations[edit]

First of all, thanks for taking the effort to write this article. It is already an enjoyable read about a very beautiful and interesting plant! Here are my more formal remarks for the review:

  • The article is indeed quite short, and it seems to me it could be developed further content-wise. Three examples: The plant has been considered a medicinal herb in Mongolia. In "Antifungal activity of Mongolian medicinal plant extracts" we learn that "Aquilegia sibirica L. [sic] is considered a major therapeutic drug of Oriental Medicine, where the plant is usedin female diseases, bronchial asthma, rheumatism and cardiovascular diseases andmoreover it inhibitedS. aureus (Gonchig et al.2008)" So it seems you could elaborate on how and against what it has been used as a traditional medicine? Similarly, at least I find it picturesque that the specimen introduced to the US in 1933 were gifts from the Botanical Garden in Leningrad. (I at least would not have expected that botanists in the USSR remained in cordial contact with their US counterparts even during the height of Stalin terror.) A simple line about this could expand the article a bit and add to its interest for the general reader. Lastly: In common with other Aquilegia species, the Siberian columbine possesses nectar spurs. Crosses between Aquilegia sibirica and Aquilegia ecalcarata–the only Aquilegia species that lacks spurred pedals–have been studied to identify the gene responsible for spurred pedals As a reader I want to know more about this research, what was the result? So I would encourage a general closer scourging of sources and try to build the article even further. I think it is possible. You have a fair number of reliable sources quoted, but there may be more useful stuff out there. While there is no strict criterion for the article to be of a certain length it is true that it is short, compared to other GA articles on plants. Consider if you can expand the three sections which right now make up the article. The physical description of the plants is for example quite brief. Perhaps there is nothing much more to add, but take another look and see if you can't elaborate a bit more on it. Other sections (or info), like on conservation status, cultivation (is it cultivated? The Finns seem to suggest it could be cultivated, but plantlust dot com (what a name!) seem to have put theory into practice, already.) or etymology is lacking altogether. So to sum up, I would encourage you to try to grow (pun intended) the article a bit more; a bit more flowery (pun intended) language could help you a bit on the way there, as well.
  • The main image in the infobox is fine, though I miss the original botanical illustration (precisely because it is a botanical illustration and thus a "compromise of accuracy and idealized images from several specimens") and would have liked to see both of them in the article. The black and white picture is one of the most unclear photographs I have seen in my life. I think it confuses more than it helps.
  • There is no External links section. I would at least expect links to Commons and Wikispecies.
  • While it is not prohibited to have inline citations in the lead, the gist of the MOS in this regard is that they could be expected to be included there if it contains content likely to be challenged. It is not the case here, so I would suggest you to keep the lead clean of inline citations (though I won't be dogmatic about it).
  • Un-wikilink Mongolia and Kazakhstan; we usually don't wikilink countries.
  • Wikilink to 12th edition of Systema Naturae instead, and add "by Linnaeus" for a minimum of context.
  • If you look at the notes section of Symphyotrichum kentuckiense, you'll find some neat ways of including definitions (with little illustrations!) of plant shapes which I would suggest you try using here as well.
  • Put all measurements in convert templates, so that both imperial and metric measurements are given.
  • Aquilegia sibirica is native to the north-central Asian regions of Siberia, northern Mongolia, Kazakhstan, and Xinjiang. Evidence for a continuous Euro-Siberian vegetation is found in the distribution of the Siberian columbine considered alongside that of the Aquilegia vulgaris. The population in Middle Siberia is considered a quaternary relict (a population that once possessed a broader range in an earlier geologic epoch). What does "Evidence for a continuous Euro-Siberian vegetation" mean? Is it another way of describing its range? Because if so, it contradicts the first and last sentence. And is the population in Middle Siberia a separate population from the populations found elsewhere in Siberia, northern Mongolia, Kazakhstan, and Xinjiang? I think this sentence could benefit from more clarity and some elaboration.
  • I've been trying to find something to complain about regarding the prose but it is well written. I guess you are a native English speaker?

OK, those are my comments for now. A bit of a mixed bag, obviously, with some low hanging fruit (by the way, there is no description of the Siberica's fruit!) and some that may take more effort. Let me know if you have any comments/questions/concerns about this and we can see how we can solve it. Best regards, Yakikaki (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the in-depth comments! I can see light at the end of the tunnel on this but will need to adequately address all of the issues raised with a bit more research and recalibration. Unfortunately, that means I won't be able to begin to engage with this to the degree desired until the end of Wednesday UTC. I signed on to review another GAN and I owe it to the nominator to complete that review first before proceeding here. Your patience is deeply appreciated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time, Pbritti. I know it seems like a lot of work but once you sit down and dig into it, I'm sure it will go quickly and smoothly. You have several dedicated editors who can help out. And the GA is definitively within reach. I'm going to be away myself Wednesday-Sunday. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, no rush on you getting back to this. I'll be available pretty consistently through next week and intend to avoid taking on any additional reviews until completing this one. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aquilegia_sibirica&oldid=1221101818"