Talk:Ficus rubiginosa

Ficus rubiginosa 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.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 27, 2016.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 13, 2016	Good article nominee	Listed
May 14, 2016	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Ficus rubiginosa is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ficus rubiginosa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080719032605/http://www.rsnz.org/publish/nzjb/1996/115.php to http://www.rsnz.org/publish/nzjb/1996/115.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More to check....[edit]

this and this and this and this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thanks/much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"They found F. rubiginosa to be most closely related to the rainforest species F. watkinsiana and two lithophytic species of arid northern Australia (F. atricha and F. brachypoda) and classified it in a new series Rubiginosae in the subsection Platypodeae." Perhaps this sentence could be split: how about "They found F. rubiginosa to be most closely related to the rainforest species F. watkinsiana and two lithophytic species of arid northern Australia (F. atricha and F. brachypoda). They classified these species in a new series, Rubiginosae, in the subsection Platypodeae."

yep/split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not being somewhat imprecise in calling the varieties "subspecies" and "forms"?

good point - the cases where "form" is used imprecisely are removed. Term only valid after Dixon used it recently Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is var. variegata still considered independent?

no, not recognised as distinct now. Will read and add some info Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"epiphyte" is explained, but not "hemi-epiphyte"

all should be hemiepiphyte - linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Females then have a short time (< 48 hours) to find a tree with receptive syconia to successfully reproduce and disperse pollen." Reference?

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling with the male/female thing. You say that there are male and female flowers in the same syconia, then say that there are both male and female syconia?

yes - the male and femal flowers within the syconia mature at different times, hence a syconium has a male phase and a female phase. ~~I'll rephrase or add a footnote~~ added a footnote Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"At least 14 species have been recorded" Personally, I'd be interested to see a full list

I've listed now - I thought they go better as a footnote as so listy, but happy to think on other ways of presenting this info Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Investigation of F. rubiginosa syconia found that the fig seeds and parasitic wasps develop closer to the wall of the syconium while pollinator wasps developed deeper i" Tense shift

aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Nematodes of the genus Schistonchus are found in the syconia (and the polliator wasps)" In the wasps, or on them?

it is 'in' - recovery from Hemolymph is mentioned in this article, but it doesn't say much otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"A variegated form, F. rubiginosa "variegata" is in cultivation." Anything to do with Guilfoyle's variety? I'm assuming both are separate to the "variegated form" which "requires brighter light"?

looks like they are - but these would be considered a genetic mutant now not variety. Need to find a source though. Aha, ~~will digest and add later today :)~~ added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite the size of the leaves" Why?

They are big for a tiny bonsai - clarified thus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some copyediting- please double-check. I'll be back to look at the images/sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

copyediting looks ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm happy with the images and sources. I'm still not fully clear on "Despite the relatively large size of the leaves" (is there some reason that relatively large leaves would typically suggest that it would not be popular?) but I'm certainly not going to hold up promotion for that. I think you could still be a bit clearer about which forms/varieties/subspecies are still recognised. In any case, I'm happy to promote now, and leave these as things for you to think on. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about this, I have aligned the forms. moved the variegated stuff down to cultivation to make it more cohesive. NB. the art of bonsai is to have tiny leaves to mimic those of a tree seen from a distance, hence large leaved things are generally frowned upon.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ficus rubiginosa. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151223140112/https://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/RoyalBotanicGarden/media/RBG/Science/Cunninghamia/Volume%205%20-%201997/Volume-5(2)-1997-Cun5Ben330-544.pdf to https://www.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/RoyalBotanicGarden/media/RBG/Science/Cunninghamia/Volume%205%20-%201997/Volume-5%282%29-1997-Cun5Ben330-544.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ficus rubiginosa. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150221061322/http://www.zoo.ox.ac.uk/group/west/pdf/Moore_etal_08.pdf to http://www.zoo.ox.ac.uk/group/west/pdf/Moore_etal_08.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 10:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]