Jump to content

Talk:Banksia oblongifolia/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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)
  • petioles is a dablink
  • "which it often co-occurs with" with which it often co-occurs?
  • 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.
  • "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]

More thoughts-

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?
  • 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?
  • 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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Banksia_oblongifolia/GA1&oldid=1144172973"