Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Epacris impressa/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 Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2014 (diff).

---

Epacris impressa

Nominator(s): Melburnian (talk · contribs) and Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is about the floral emblem of the state of Victoria. I think it came together well and invite folks to let us know what else we (i.e. me and Melburnian can fix..pronto-like. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Driveby comment

Is there some exception with plants regarding the use of the single quotemarks? They shouldn't be double? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

when writing about plant cultivars we'd generally write ones that hadn't been PBR'ed with single quotes and ones that had with double quotes, but I think that is not a general rule. Have seen both here, but single quotes seem to be preferred - see Wikipedia:NCFLORA#Hybrids.2C_cultivars_and_provisional_names Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the exception is mentioned at MOS:QUOTEMARKS (Double or single). --Melburnian (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Another driveby: in the taxonomy section there's this sentence: 'A year later, he described E. nivalis, which he described as an "exceedingly beautiful species", from specimens growing in Loddiges nursery.' This uses "described" twice in different senses of the word, which is awkward and possibly confusing. Can the second use of the word be replaced, one way or another? Off the top of my head "characterized as" or "mentioned as" would be plausible, but neither of them sounds quite right. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 14:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I changed to "wrote of" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Images

• File:Epacris_impressa_-_Paxton.jpg needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Done.--Melburnian (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

SupportA few comments from CorinneSD

First, the article is quite well-written as it is. I made a few minor copy-edits which you will see. I have just a few questions:

Your copyedits look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

1) Toward the end of the section Epacris impressa#Description are the following sentences:

"Within the corolla is a central style with the stigma at the apex and ovary at the base, where the nectar is also located. Different colour forms are often observed growing near each other. The fruit is a 5-locule capsule that is about 3.5 mm (0.14 in) in diameter. It is globular in shape, sometimes with one end flattened, and the style is persistent."

When I saw "and the style is persistent", I figured you meant the shape of the fruit, or capsule, but it could be a little confusing to readers who are not botanists. I may be wrong, but I think this is a different meaning from the first use of "style". Is there any way you could use a different word for the second instance (if it does in fact mean something different from the first use)?

Both instances of the word "style" refer to the floral element so I combined the two mentions to reduce confusion.--Melburnian (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

2) In the second paragraph in the section Epacris impressa#Taxonomy is the following sentence:

"Prolific botanist Robert Brown described Epacris ruscifolia in his 1810 work Prodromus Florae Novae Hollandiae et Insulae Van Diemen alongside E. impressa".

I wonder about including the adjective "prolific" here. It doesn't relate to anything else in that sentence or paragraph. No adjective before "botanist" would be all right, but if you want to use one, I think it would be more interesting for the average reader to give his nationality.

I ended up removing 'prolific' as (although he was prolific) it is not particularly germane to this article and looks odd when combined with his nationality... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

3) Also in the second paragraph in "Taxonomy" are the following sentences:

"John Lindley described Epacris tomentosa from plant specimens collected during the third expedition of Thomas Mitchell in 1838. Found on Mount William in the Grampians, it was described as "A most beautiful downy-leaved Epacris with large, curved, purple flowers, allied to E. grandiflora but much handsomer".

This is similar to the problem mentioned above by Nihiltres regarding E. nivalis later in this paragraph. You have the word "described" twice but with different meanings. (I believe the first instance is a botanists' term meaning something like "described for the first time".) In the first sentence you write, "John Lindley described...." Then in the second sentence, you switch to passive voice and say, "it was described as", with a detailed description full of admiration. If that is all right with you, then it can stay. I tried to figure out a way to change it so that you have Lindley saying this rather than the passive voice "it was described as", without making the first sentence longer, but haven't yet.

I changed it to ...Mitchell remarked that it was "A most beautiful downy-leaved Epacris..., as it was Mitchell's remark in the account of his expedition, rather than Lindley's description, the latter appearing as a footnote in that work.--Melburnian (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

4) The last sentence of the third paragraph in "Taxonomy" is:

"He classified plants collected by Allan Cunningham in the Blue Mountains as E. impressa as a separate species E. reclinata".

This is a little confusing. I think it means:

He classified plants [that had been] collected by Allan Cunningham in the Blue Mountains [and that Cunningham had identified] as E. impressa and identified them as a separate species E. reclinata.

If I am correct, then I think many readers would have trouble gleaning all this meaning from that sentence. I think some words need to be added to the sentence to fill it out and make the meaning clear. If I am wrong in my guess as to what it means, then that just supports my feeling that the sentence needs clarification.

You are indeed correct and I have tweaked it to try and make it unambiguous... 04:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure the problem is completely cleared up. I will look at it again a little later today. CorinneSD (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I re-worded two sentences in this paragraph to improve flow and clarity.

they look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

5) Regarding spelling: You've got "south-east" in the first paragraph in the lead and "south-eastern New South Wales" in the fourth paragraph in Epacris impressa#Taxonomy. I thought "southeast" was one word and "southeastern" was one word.

I removed the hyphen.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

6) Regarding measurements: I see you used the conversion template for measurements early in the article. I've exchanged ideas with Sminthopsis84 on this. I know metric measurements are expressed in decimals (ml., centimeters, meters, kilometers), but inches and feet are not usually expressed in decimals. For readers (like me) who are used to inches and feet, a decimal such as 0.3 inch or 2.5 inches means very little. We can't get a mental picture of the size of the plant, length of stem or leaves, etc. Is there a way to calculate the inches measurements so that they are expressed as 1/8 inch, 1/4 inch, 1/3 inch, 1/2 inch, 3/4 inch, 1-1/2 inch, etc., and feet so that they are 1'6", 2'8", etc., and delete the decimal that came out of the conversion template? – CorinneSD (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

See, funny you should say that, as that is what I did initially at FAC (see Banksia ericifolia) before (I recall) folks suggesting different. I am morethan happy to dispense with decimal places for imperial units...will have a look round and see if/when we discussed it...I have now asked at MOS as I am intrigued myself.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

See User talk:Sminthopsis84#Anise. CorinneSD (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

hmmm, ok - it's late here and I think I will sleep on it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)I must admit I do prefer fractions...amused there is "6 ft 7 in"..I can't look at that and not be reminded of Mae West's famous quip when meeting a 6 ft 7 in cowboy... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

(See some additional comments, interspersed above.) The fifth paragraph in Epacris impressa#Taxonomy begins:

"In his 1972 publication A Handbook to Plants in Victoria, Victorian botanist Jim Willis..."

Even though you've got "Victoria" in the title of the book A Handbook to Plants in Victoria there, the adjective "Victorian" before a name often means "from the Victorian age". I don't think you mean that because he published a book in 1972. You probably mean that he is/was from the province/state of Victoria in Australia (and Australians would be more likely to immediately associate "Victorian" with "from Victoria"). Do you really need to say that he was from Victoria? I don't think it's necessary. I think just "botanist" is enough, or perhaps "Australian botanist". The nationality would be an interesting bit of information for non-Australians. CorinneSD (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I changed it to "Australian botanist".--Melburnian (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD - I think we've covered (or replied to) all concerns raised so far....how do you think it looks now...? cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for asking! Here are just a few minor issues:

1) At the beginning of the lead, I'm wondering whether "the southeastern part of Australia" wouldn't sound better than "the southeast of Australia".

Hmmm, I was musing on this - "Australia's southeast" sounds more natural to me but I suspect could be construed as a tad informal, so yeah I think it's slightly unfamiliar but ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

2) Just after that, you give the usual height range of the plant as:

"about .5 m (1 ft 8 in) to 1 m (3 ft 3 in) tall".

I'm wondering whether it would read better if you put the range in the metric system first and then the range in feet and inches:

"about .5 m to 1 m (1 ft 8 in to 3 ft 3 in) tall".

Yep - agree it's an improvement and would have done myself (thx!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

(By the way, I know it's probably Mos style, but in the U.S., the abbreviations "ft." and "in." are always written with a period after them, so it looks really odd the way they are written.)

Is it worth discussing and changing the template maybe? Beyond the scope of this a little... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

3) In this sentence:

"It grows best in a well-drained but moist soil in a semishaded position",

I don't think the indefinite article "a" is necessary before "well-drained but moist soil". I guess botanists and landscapers may use a jargon in which "soil" is treated as a countable noun (thus having a singular and a plural form), but "soil" is normally an uncountable noun, so does not require an article before it. It would then read:

"It grows best in well-drained but moist soil..."

If you prefer a countable usage, you could add: "an area of", so it would read:

"It grows best in an area of well-drained but moist soil...."

If you really like the countable usage of "soil", perhaps the plural:

"It grows best in well-drained but moist soils..."

but if you like the singular "a well-drained but moist soil", that's fine.

Hmmm, I must have left that in accidentally - it is unequivocally better without indefinite article (agreed) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

4) I made two copy-edits at the beginning of Epacris impressa#Description. Hope you approve. After I saved them, I saw that at the beginning of the section you give a range of height, grouped as I suggested above. However, you have used en-dashes. I wonder if you would consider using the word "to" instead of en-dashes? I think it would be easier to read.

I like using "to" liberally instead of dashes - regardinng this, I think I might need to tweak - it is the plant that grows to height X, not its habit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You're completely right. I think I was a little tired when I was editing last night.

have changed dash to "to" ...and removed a couple of convert templates....mixing it up a little... Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

5) In the middle of the second paragraph in Epacris impressa#Taxonomy, I think there may be a "hanging participle"; I'm checking with Rothorpe at User talk:Rothorpe#Epacris impressa 2 to be sure.

I was right. See User talk:Rothorpe#Epacris impressa 2. CorinneSD (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

hanging participle duly removed ..cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I just realized that the usual phrase is "dangling participle". I don't know why I called it a hanging participle. But it's fixed, anyway. I'm wondering whether you would consider adding a word in front of "encountering":

"After encountering....", or

"Upon encountering....". I think it needs something.

Hmmm, I am happy enough without, but I am prone to dropping pronouns and particles all over the place...folks are often asking me to readd..so I'll take "Upon" please for 50 points... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

6) The last sentence of the first paragraph in Epacris impressa#Ecology reads:

"Field work in the Mount Lofty Ranges in South Australia recorded the white-plumed and New Holland honeyeaters, as well as crescent honeyeaters and eastern spinebill".

I'm just wondering "eastern spinebill" should be plural, "eastern spinebills", to parallel the plural "crescent honeyeaters" or whether it is all right as it is. Maybe "spinebill" is one of those words that can be either singular or plural.

Aah, "crescent honeyeater" should have been singular there - all are species-as-units there and hence singular. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

7) The first sentence in Epacris impressa#Cultivation reads:

"Common heath was introduced into cultivation in England by the Clapton Nursery in 1825, who had propagated it from seed collected by William Baxter in southern Australia".

I'm wondering about the use of the relative pronoun "who" to refer to a nursery. In U.S. usage, "who" is used only to refer to a person or people. I believe that in British usage, it can refer to an organization or government agency. Is that also Australian usage?

oops, missed that...should have been "which"... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's all. It's a very nice article.CorinneSD (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

See my notes at Items 4 and 5, above. I want to ask you about your use of the green font color. I think it's such a good idea. It really makes your comments stand out. I'd like to do the same, but is there a place on WP where one can select from among various colors? I wouldn't want to use the same color that you are using. CorinneSD (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You think I should convert all the dashes? for little fiddly mm-type thingies seems a bit laboured..but if you really think so I am not averse....re the colour...will take to your talk page 01:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth

A nice article. A few points on the prose (mostly) struck me:

• "It generally grows as a small shrub, about .5 m (1 ft 8 in) to 1 m (3 ft 3 in) tall, with small stiff leaves." - I thought at first that this was a conversion error but eventually spotted the previously invisible decimal point before the 5.

I've dispensed with the template as it sounds better like this...and kept a '0' in Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• The lead is a bit short.

Did a little but hard as the article itself isn't that big,, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I still think the lead section is inadequate. It doesn't mention taxonomy and does not summarise the "Ecology" section, merely providing a couple of examples but omitting the regeneration after bushfires. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• I thought the Taxonomy section comprehensive and excellent.

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Honeyeaters such as the eastern spinebill are attracted to the flowers in their native habitat." - "in their native habitat" seems redundant.

Agreed...now I think of it...and removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• "... attaches itself to the feather on the heads of the birds ..." - A single feather?

hmmm, should be plural...and now is Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• "Common heath was introduced into cultivation in England by the Clapton Nursery in 1825, which had propagated it from seed collected by William Baxter in southern Australia." - this sentence changes subject halfway through.

am in two minds here - I know what you mean but I sorta think this switches 'neatly' here. An happy to field 3rd, 4th opinions on this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest the following wording for this sentence:

"Propagated from seed collected by William Baxter in southern Australia, Common heath was introduced into cultivation in England by the Clapton Nursery in 1825."

Agreed/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

and I suggest re-wording these two sentences:

"In 1873, a variety known as Epacris impressa alba was recorded as being grown commercially for cut flowers in Boston in the United States. Initially popular, over seventy cultivars appeared in literature at the time; however, most have since disappeared.

as:

In 1873, a variety known as Epacris impressa alba was recorded as being grown commercially for cut flowers in Boston in the United States, with over seventy cultivars appearing in the literature at the time. While initially popular, most have since disappeared.

or:

In 1873, a variety known as Epacris impressa alba was recorded as being grown commercially for cut flowers in Boston in the United States. While initially popular – over seventy cultivars appeared in the literature at the time – most have since disappeared.

CorinneSD (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

taken latter one - first is not right as it makes it sound like there were 70 varieties of alba rather than (correctly) referring to the whole species. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• "As they age, plants may become straggly, but benefit from hard pruning after fertilizing and watering, which promotes compact, bushier growth afterwards." - "afterwards" is redundant. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed...now I think of it...and removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Cas, I saw your edit to this sentence, but something is still not right:

"Growing in heathland, shrubland or open forest, it is generally as a small shrub..."

Do you think "it is generally as a small shrub" is right? I think you could leave out "as":

"Growing in heathland, shrubland or open forest, it is generally a small shrub...",

or change the verbs:

"Thriving in (or Found in) heathland, shrubland or open forest, it generally grows as a small shrub...". CorinneSD (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It was a sloppy cut and paste - "as" removed.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Most of my comments mentioned above (which have got a bit mixed up with Corinne's) have been satisfactorily dealt with, but I still think that the lead section fails to conform to the MOS as it does not summarise the article fully and includes some specific information that should not be there. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok - lead tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with your alterations to the lead section and am now supporting this candidacy on the grounds of prose and comprehensiveness. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Peter coxhead

Generally this seems to me a very clear, well-written and comprehensive article about a plant species. It gives all the information that could be expected (for example as per WP:Plants/Template), except perhaps its position within the genus – is anything known about origins or phylogeny of the species within Epacris? Has anyone proposed sections within the genus? I support the candidacy of this article. A few small points follow. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing anyithing infrageneric in Epacris, but will do another check can't find anything..lots at family or genus level but nothing infrageneric.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I’ve started looking into these two literature sources: 1 2 —but as yet i haven’t obtained the full text copy of the first, paywalled from where i am now, and the best reference source chance of the two; the second is free, interesting in other information, may cite useful other papers and so first i’ll have a quick read of it. --Macropneuma 12:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

damn, can't get that Springer one either at first glance...will see if there's another way...might be too broad but one never knows... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• "that is native to Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and New South Wales in southeast Australia" – any reader who needs to follow the link to "Australia" isn't going to know what the states are (or even that they are states – "South Australia" could just be an area with a stray capital on "south"). I'd be inclined to write something like "that is native to southeast Australia–the states of Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and New South Wales."

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• "The flower is formed by five petals fused to form the tubelike corolla, with the petal ends free to form five corolla lobes at the apex." – this doesn't seem worded quite right to me; to a non-botanist it may imply that it's only a corolla because the petals are fused. Perhaps something like "The corolla of the flower is formed by five petals, fused at the base to form a tubelike structure, with the free petal ends forming five lobes at the apex."

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Tricky point, but in the taxobox, Epacris ceriflora is spelt correctly – the ICN requires correction of names originally published with "ae" instead of "i" – but in the text of the Taxonomy section it's spelt ceraeflora. The article could say something like "Dr Robert Graham described Epacris ceriflora (which he spelt ceraeflora) ..."

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• "... yet conceded it was difficult to find characters that distinguished ..." The word "concede" is an editorial comment – Graham wrote that "it is extremely difficult to get written characters" [my emphasis] to distinguish the three but that they were "obviously very different species". He neither "conceded" nor said that it was "difficult to find characters", only that it was difficult to describe in writing the characters he considered to distinguish the "obviously" different species.

good catch - tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as a non-botanist, I don't understand "it was difficult to describe in writing the characters that distinguished E. ceraeflora, E. nivalis, E. variabilis and E. impressa". What are "characters"? And why is "in writing" necessary? Do you mean he could describe something orally but not in writing? CorinneSD (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I like your clear thinking, re: plain English, here, CorinneSD. As a field botanist who has observed in the field, examples of some of the variation (within what is now thought of as this one species) referred to by those names (synonymised former segregate species names), i confidently assert that that author meant that it is difficult to describe in words (in writing or orally) the plant parts characters (—jargon. The characterising parts of the plants, if you like.) that distinguish those four names. Field observations make remembered mental images (which can have great detail for field botanists); illustrations, including drawings, paintings and more recently the technology of photographs (even 3D photography tech.), may or may not provide sufficient visual description for viewers to distinguish them, but the rules require formally published written description so that would be informal description as it’s unwritten. CorinneSD please help (academic) botany (in this article’s case) to make sense in plain English of what may be their insiders’ obscure information and jargon shifts of word meanings.--Macropneuma 01:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a dialectal difference between Australian and American English or whether the use of the word "character" in this context is simply botanists' jargon, but when you write, "the characterising features of parts of the plants", I would use the word "characteristics" rather than "characters" in the sentence we are discussing. That would make much more sense to me. If you would accept the change from "characters" to "characteristics", I suggest the following wording (feel free, of course, to modify it):

"it was difficult to put into writing precisely those characteristics that distinguished E. ceraeflora, E. nivalis, E. variabilis and E. impressa" or:

"it was difficult to put into writing the precise characteristics that distinguished E. ceraeflora, E. nivalis, E. variabilis and E. impressa". -- CorinneSD (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input above. I put in: it was difficult to describe the precise characteristics that distinguished ... --Melburnian (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes briefly now, i’m very happy to accept that, as well. (For one of many examples, see the frequent wording in this world renowned botanical key, nicknamed 'The RFK', which people like me use such a lot; perhaps it has some bits of poor English and my frequent use has shifted some of my English usage, including of repeating those parts of it having poor English? —Wouldn’t surprise me in the least.) --Macropneuma 02:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

For a, related, general English semantics example, please consider: The character of a person eg. John’s character. cf. The characteristics of a person, eg. John’s characteristics. --Macropneuma 03:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

"Character" is the standard term used in biology generally for a precise feature. It's defined in The Kew Plant Glossary as a "single technical difference, used to distinguish taxa". Characters then have particular "character states", so that the character "symmetry of corolla" could have the character state "actinomorphic" or "zygomorphic". The character/character state terminology is standard in phylogenetics, for example – see that article for uses of the term "character". So Melburnian's "precise characteristics" are actually "characters". Peter coxhead (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Peter Coxhead for finding a biology dictionary/glossary source for its usage—indeed … . --Macropneuma 07:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC) Also we field botanists often read, write and say the wording of: (botanical) key characters, etc. --Macropneuma 07:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Character could be used but I think it would need to be linked for those that are not familiar with the use of the term in biology and I can't find any article suitable to link it to. --Melburnian (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Melburnian: well, there's Character (biology) though it doesn't seem quite right – the use in phylogenetics is important these days. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, the title sounds promising but the redirect to the article Phenotypic trait doesn't help here.--Melburnian (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate all the explanations. I learned something new -- the use of the word "character" in the field of botany. I think the word is closer in meaning to the general word "characteristics" than to the meaning of the word "character" when speaking of a person: "he is a man of good character". If it is not possible to link the word "character" to an explanatory article, I think the word "characteristics" should be used here. The use of the word "character" is mystifying to an average reader, and the article should be written so that an average reader can understand it. If you feel that the word "character" needs to be used, perhaps putting "characteristics" in parentheses after it would suffice. CorinneSD (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I think an implied [character = characteristics] would not be correct here, your original [character = "precise characteristics that distinguished"] is closer to the mark IMHO.--Melburnian (talk) 02:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I liked the way you worded the sentence, Melburnian. I was just responding to Peter Coxhead's statement above: "Character" is the standard term used in biology..." (and arguing against the use of "character"). CorinneSD (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• There was a sentence beginning "fit Bentham's original description"; I restored "The plant populations that best" from an earlier version, but please check that this is correct.

yep - good catch Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.
• "The long-pink and short-white races frequently occur in close proximity to each other, in which case the former tends to flower in winter and the latter in spring.": I don't want writers to be self-conscious about perfectly good words they'll sometimes need ... but there are five phrases in one sentence here (occur, proximity, in which case, former, latter) that I'd like to test for tone ... I think they may signal stuffiness to some readers ... and so many at once should probably be flagged (and this is something that can be automated, so I've thrown it into my pile of things to automate). I'm interested in whether this advice comes across as too fussy. (Possible substitute: "When long-pink and short-white races grow close together ...")
• Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

thanks - no, it's a fair comment - I often try to be economical with words and phrases...and it looks like I've gone too far. Adopted Macropneuma's suggestion below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

G’day. … good insights on the two sentences …, IMHO. How about this? (leavening your idea by using a tiny few words bit of my first hand subject matter knowledge of Epacris impressa and plants in general):

"The long-pink and short-white races frequently occur in close proximity to each other. In these mixed populations the former tends to flower in winter and the latter in spring." —--Macropneuma 13:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 22:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Support from Wehwalt

Very nicely written and quite interesting. A few comments.

Description

• I would link style to style (botany) on first use

The first instance of style links to gynoecium. Style (botany) is a redirect to gynoecium. Am I missing something?--Melburnian (talk) 10:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I guess I missed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• "A number of specimens described as separate species" I might put "once" before "described". In view of the heavy use of the term "described" in the paragraph, I might suggest "regarded" here

added "once"...."described" has a specific connotation (see species description), as I don't know how long after they were described that they were considered separate (not long I think), therefore has the right emphasis. Also, "regarded" used almost straight after...and we'd have two regardeds...will see if I can tinker elsewhere... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Variation etc.

• "there was no incompatibility between them – all populations were compatible" It strikes me that what comes after the dash is implied by what comes before and might be omitted.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Done.--Melburnian (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Support. Comments. This looks in great shape.

• Pardon my ignorance, but why are several levels of the taxonomic hierarchy in the infobox marked as unranked? Surely there is indeed a phylum, and a class?

There's a guideline in the Taxobox documentation that explains it here.--Melburnian (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• "...with over seventy named cultivars. However, most of these have vanished": suggest "...with over seventy named cultivars, most of which have now vanished".

Done. --Melburnian (talk) 03:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• The sentence beginning "Scottish botanist Robert Brown" seems to be a run-on sentence; shouldn't that comma in the middle be either a period or a semicolon?

Done. --Melburnian (talk) 06:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• You say that E. grandiflora is regarded as a synonym of E. impressa, but earlier you have E. grandiflora linked to E. longiflora, which appears not to be a synonym. Isn't this inconsistent?

E. impressa var. grandiflora is the synonym of E. impressa. I've added a footnote to distinguish the two, and hopefully alleviate confusion.--Melburnian (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That's all I can spot; I expect to support once these minor points are dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Everything looks good; switching to support above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all reviewers for their time.--Melburnian (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- This has had an unaddressed source review request for a while so I've just given them a quick look myself. Nothing looked obviously unreliable, and the three or four links I checked were all live. Formatting-wise, just a minor point: Australian Journal of Botany seems to linked inconsistently in the citations -- I'd have expected all the time if it's part of a special template, or not at all, or on first use only, but it seems to be none of the above. I won't hold up promotion over that but pls check it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I've de-linked the second reference. I was cutting and pasting the reference before tweaking the differences as it was a second article by same authors. Now the journal only linked in first mention Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• 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. Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

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