Talk:Coronariae

Coronariae has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 12, 2020. (Reviewed version).

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Coronariae/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dank (talk · contribs) 03:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Main review section[edit]

Hi Michael, let's get started. As I mentioned on your talk page, I can spot-check the online German sources. I may actually know enough Botanical Latin to cover the online Latin sources too.

Also: there's not a lot of text below the lead that isn't list-y. It's not a fatal flaw, but it's a concern, for me anyway. There are several options for what to add ... what do you think of adding some images and text descriptions that will help the general reader get up to speed on what species we're talking about here? I think most readers will need some help understanding what Liliales covers. - Dank (push to talk) 03:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Back in the morning. - Dank (push to talk) 04:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The material you added yesterday and today is more than satisfactory. - Dank (push to talk) 16:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The GA Toolbox links are picking up: 1. the link for Praelectiones in ordines naturales plantarum redirects to https://bibdigital.rjb.csic.es/records/item/13033-redirection. In cases where the second link appears temporary (and that's the case here, judging from "redirection"), it can be better to keep the original link ... your call. 2. missing accessdates. Accessdates aren't needed if the link in question is to a listing of a book (such as at Google Books), but they generally are needed if the link is to text that's being relied on to support the article. There are some judgment calls to make here.

It is an invisible redirect, but in general they are better avoided, so changed. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 18:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think accessdates are overused - I agree that it is not necessary for books - or journal articles. I'm not convinced that adding them adds anything but clutter. Websites are another matter, or anything that is subject to change. That's the principle I follow. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 18:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further explanation on this: accessdate requirements range from those at WP:CITE (which seems to imply that you never need them if you have a publication date) to, for instance, WP:FLC, where customarily people ask for them whenever there's webtext supporting the content of the list. A reasonable approach is probably somewhere in between. The two I'm asking for in the next point are probably important; other than that, it's up to you to make the call of how likely it is that webtext that the article relies on will change over time. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Researchgate (the Givnish article) and Zenodo (the Bentham article) are being flagged by the User:Headbomb/unreliable tool as potentially too wiki-like to be reliable per se. I don't think this is a problem because I have no reason to doubt that the articles are being tampered with. Accessdates are needed in these two cases.

Personally I think that is bizarre, nevertheless I have added them. I have been a dedicated ResearchGate user for years, it is very reliable. If anything Zenodo is even more weird, given that it is an open access project of CERN. I will take this up with Headbomb and try and get it modified. Note that in both cases, the link is merely supplementary to the doi for those users less fortunate than myself in terms of access to academic libraries! --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 19:58, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, please do contact him. Above my pay grade. - Dank (push to talk) 20:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:UPSD#Common cleanup and non-problematic cases, "General repositories" for your answer. Basically RG and Zenodo are user-uploaded and have no filtering system, so will often host preprints and articles from predatory journals. Hence why the links are in pale yellow (meaning double check, rather than probably problematic). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed some punctuation in the refs.
No errors detected with Harvard references (using User:Ucucha/HarvErrors).
"However, although the number of families remains about the same Perleb's construction the circumscription of both the order Liliales and its nominative family Liliaceae have undergone major changes over the years, and particularly with the advent of molecular phylogenetics, as a consequence of which it is greatly reduced, though still a large monocot order.": Probably needs breaking up, and it's hard to parse.

Fair enough, rephrased --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 20:04, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My copyediting has been very minor, usually punctuation. It's a pleasure to review articles for people who know how to write.
Okay, I'm finished with copyediting; I won't be making further edits to the article. I'll be back soon ... I need to finish my spotchecks and fill in the table below. - Dank (push to talk) 16:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks reveal no problems. I may be missing something, but I can't find page numbers for some of the refs ... start with Lotsy and work your way down. It's fine in some cases to omit page numbers, but not when a book has more than 800 pages.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
~~One sentence needs work.~~
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
~~See above.~~
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Background[edit]

While upgrading Liliales with a view to GA I noticed that Coronariae was referenced in a number of places on WP without any explanation, so I decided to rectify this. Yes, it is "listy" because every author has used the term differently, and it was important to indicate how it was used. About the only common theme being the inclusion of Lilium and related genera. As far as speciation goes, the number is vast, but the circumscription of both Liliaceae and Liliales has varied enormously, once being a catch-all that was one of the largest groupings of flowering plants, as acknowledged by Lindley. So, yes I can add a coda to place it in perspective. More illustrations may be tricky without cluttering! --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 13:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I want to be clear that "list-y" isn't a negative (I prefer lists for many things) ... I'm just referring to rule (per WP:GA?) that lists should be nominated at WP:FLC rather than WP:GAN. (This wouldn't pass FLC in its current form, and I think you were right to bring this to GAN.) I'll be getting back to work on this review right away, but I'll work above this section, so you can edit in this section if you like without edit-conflicting. - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I considered FLC - I have one, but it does not fit. And yes, I got the listy bit! --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 17:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos of nothing, I'm required to disclose that I'm listing this review for Wikicup points. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]