Talk:Banksia oblongifolia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleBanksia oblongifolia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 12, 2019.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 3, 2012Good article nomineeListed
May 12, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 27, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the larger of two varieties of Banksia oblongifolia (pictured) described in 1987 was called minor?
Current status: Featured article

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 19:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one. Thoughts to follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 19:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Some plants also grow between fires from seed shed spontaneously." Grammatically odd, and I'm not quite clear what is meant.
    • Ah, what it means is this - many plants of this type exclusively reproduce after bushfire - they rely on fire to shed seed so that it is easy to see populations all date to specific bushfire events which occur every several years. This one shed a few seeds in between which germinate and grow without fire, which is somewhat unusual. I'll tweak it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Easily grown as a garden plant, it is not commonly seen in horticulture." How about "Though easily grown..."?
  • "reddish brown fading to greyish brown" I believe "reddish-brown" and "greyish-brown" would be preferred?
  • "obovate", "sinuses", "cotyledons", "hypocotyl", "lanceolate", "oblanceolate, elliptic or linear"- undefined/unlinked jargon (though I note that obovate is defined further down, twice)
    • rejigged, linked and explained if possible without jamming the prose. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • petioles is a dablink
  • "which it often co-occurs with" with which it often co-occurs?
    • awww, I reckon the first sounds nicer off the tongue - the latter is trying to enforce a Latin construction where it is not necessary. I'll find a link... Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fern-leaved Banksia or fern-leaved banksia?
  • "He pointed out that Salisbury's original described the leaves only, was insufficient to diagnose the species" This doesn't make sense
    • Essentially the amount written is such that it still could have applied to a number of species. i.e. a description has to be sufficient to explain or write about the unique nature of a species. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In fact, Brown himself" You have not introduced Brown yet, so this seems highly out-of-place
  • "sections" Link?
  • The first three paragraphs in the taxonomy section seem to leave the name B. oblongifolia as a synonym of B. integrifolia- the first paragraph of the first subsection then starts with talking about B. oblongifolia; I'm having trouble following. A lot of what is mentioned in the lead ("Spanish botanist Antonio José Cavanilles described B. oblongifolia in 1800, though it was known as Banksia asplenifolia in New South Wales for many years. However, the latter name, originally coined by Richard Anthony Salisbury, proved invalid, and Banksia oblongifolia has been universally adopted as the correct scientific name since 1981.") does not seem to be covered in the taxonomy section.
    • I need to think this one out a bit. Am very familiar with material so need to think how it's coming across. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "New South Wales botanists Joseph Maiden and Julius Henry Camfield described Banksia latifolia variety minor from a collection in Kogarah in 1898, later renamed as a subspecies of B. robur.[1]" Not clear what this has to do with anything; do you mean B. oblongifolia at the end?
  • "However George rejected the varieties, stating the variability was continuous." Do you have a reference for this?
    • Yeah, it was his 1999 review of changes since his 1981 monograph...00:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • "Banksia robur and B. oblongifolia hybrids have been recorded at several locations along the eastern coastline, field workers for The Banksia Atlas recorded 20 populations between Wollongong and Pialba in central Queensland." Comma splice

I'm gonna have to stop there for now- something's cropped up. I'll finish this when I get the chance. Sorry if I'm being awkward with the taxonomy stuff; it just feels incomplete right now. J Milburn (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • nah, that's fine. I'd been splicing info and rearranging, and not noticed the incongruities, and some studd needs explaining. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More thoughts-

  • "and Bilpin and Lawson in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney." Links would be helpful here.
  • "These shoot are able to grow, flower and set seed two to three years after a fire." Shoots?
  • "younger instars of which eat flower and bract parts before tunneling into the rachis as they get older and boring into follicles and eating seeds." A little jargony
    • apart from linking instar, I was wondering whether swtiching a word like "stage" was a bit too inexact for a bug/critter.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention in the lead that "it is not commonly seen in horticulture."- this is not backed up in the body of the article
  • I'm not fussed at GA stage, but something to think about- page references for Benson and McDougall 2000 would be a big help
    • I've seen elsewhere the relevant pages denoted in single brackets, which I've done here after the journal pagerange Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not keen on the bold in Bentham 1870
    • the volume field is automatically bolded in the cite template - but have eliminated that field and tacked onto title Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thiele and Ladiges 1996- again, we have a massive page-range
    • Relevant pages denoted in single brackets, which I've done here after the journal pagerange Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retrieval dates are not needed on courtesy links to journal articles, I believe
    • I'll double check on that - my understanding was we were not having them unless web only...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know full-stops are not needed in captions and such, but I think capitals are?
  • Can we have a year of description category?

I'll give you some time to rejig the taxonomy section before I give it another look through. This is an excellent article, and I'm sure with a little reoredering it will have little problem at FAC. J Milburn (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you're ready for a second look-through. J Milburn (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • meh, just go for it. I've rejigged the taxonomic history so start there - the only bit I can't elaborate on is the fact that no-one else followed Bentham in lumping oblongifolia into integrifolia apart from Karel Domin - this doesn't even get a mention so I can't just say no-one else really followed or bothered with it. I've moved the Domin synonym down in the taxobox as it is sort of a red herring in the bigger scheme of thnigs. If the taxo history makes sense, then keep on reading. If you still find it confusing, let me know and I can work on it more. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More thoughts on taxonomy-

  • The section is still not chronological, which, I would imagine, would throw a lot of readers- I feel Alex George should be mentioned at the very end (or possibly the very start) of the section.
  • Who was it who named Banksia robur variety minor a synonym of B. oblongifolia?
    • not sure, I don't think the name lasted long as a variety of robur, but source doesn't state. Will see if I can find extra info. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue of the "variety" still feels a little off. Perhaps introduce it with "another name by which the species has been known..." or something?
    • this confuses more than clarifies things where it is, so I've moved it to the discussion about the varieties, so it is all in the one place. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When was Banksia salicifolia realised to be the same thing as Bansia oblongifolia?
    • The binomial disappears pretty well straightaway, meaning it was recognised as being the same then. But I can't find anything to say that explicitly. I have an idea to check something which may help. Aah yes, from Brown onwards. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly important to the article, and clearly something you know all about- it seems worthwhile getting it right. J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Agree - I will try to rejig. have rejigged and made more chronological, and added some more background framework. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, the section is far clearer now, though I made a few tiny tweaks. I'd imagine it'd benefit from a few more eyes at FAC, but the new chronological account makes far more sense to me. I'll give the rest of the article a final look-through now. J Milburn (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, I'm happy. I'm sure this will be modified further at FAC, but right now it feels more than ready for GA status. Great work! J Milburn (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Banksia oblongifolia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Banksia_oblongifolia&oldid=1216636144"