Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ailanthus altissima

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 01:59, 24 July 2007.

Ailanthus altissima (Tree of heaven)[edit]

Most of the work was done by User:Djlayton4. I was asked to review this with an eye for FAC. I did, and ended up adding some extra material myself. I now think we're ready for another not-so-obscure plant FA. (And yes, I hope to present a non-weedy FAC at some point). Circeus 22:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Oppose. I had a misgiving about the fact that not every sentence is supported by a reference, ~~but it seems that this is a limitation of Cite.php in that~~ reference 2 supports most of the article, with 21 mentions. To address this, one would have to use referencing approaches dating from before Cite.php, and that's probably a worse evil than not having each sentence referenced (because those earlier approaches are less informative for the editor, and more breakable). Spamsara 22:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As it is, in several cases, entire paragraphs (e.g. the last of "medicine") are covered by a single citation. Other than that though, it's really not clear to me what you mean. I could understand a request for more specific reference, but that is not exactly possible for internet documents, and as far as I know, all book references used include page numbers. Circeus 23:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are two problems with that. a) how are people supposed to know that the reference covers the entire paragraph; b) someone will eventually come along and move the sentences around, and then it will no longer be obvious what was originally used to support what, except for sentences that originally were at the end of a paragraph. Spamsara 04:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The former is used in a number of FAs, and tediously adding a ref for every sentence makes the article almost illegible without actually removing the second issue, which is a liability of all referencing styles, without exception.Circeus 04:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've now opposed because I think that on closer inspection, it is quite a problem, and page numbers should be cited for each sentence to prevent article decay. Spamsara 04:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        We can't "cite page numbers" for HTMl documents, and all the book references include page references.I fail to see how this is actionable. Circeus 05:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Because on closer examination, it turns out that Cite.php can cope with more than 26 citations for the same reference. So there's no problem with citing the reference for each sentence it supports. The clutter can be dealt with at a technical level - a feature request has been filed already. Spamsara 06:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for your suggestion, but I can't understand what you think the article would gain by having every sentence cited. It's standard practice in professional journals as well as Wikipedia to place a citation at the point where information from a particular source stops. Furthermore, there is no standard Wikipedia policy that supports your suggestion to be found in either Wikipedia:Citing sources or Wikipedia:Footnotes. I've checked the style guide for Nature and it also does not recommend citing every line, but it does place an explicit limit on the number of references. If you can find a good precedent for this practice, then I would be obliged to follow, but regardless I think it would be overkill. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 10:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        
        In my opinion, FAs should have at least two citations per paragraph, in addition to having contentious statements and direct attributions cited. However, on per sentence is both unwieldy and unnecessary. Tim Vickers 18:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I passed this at GAC and its tightened up and evolved nicely since then. Great work on a godawful weed. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article is not written from a NPOV. The article seems to be written from the POV that the tree of heaven is "a godawful weed". Wiki skylace 06:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comment~~ This is a very well written and informative article. ~~Just a couple of things that I've noted:~~

~~Opening paragraph: What is meant by: "An unusual member of the genus Ailanthus"~~

~~Cultivation: " Michael Dirr, a well-respected American horticulturalist": I agree but POV wording?~~ --Melburnian 07:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means exactly what it says; that Ailanthus altissima is an unusual member of its genus for the reasons that follow that phrase (i.e. its non-tropic range). I suppose the wording could be seen as awkward, but I was going for sentence variation such that it wasn't a list that sounded like: "It is this. It is this also. It is this as well. etc.". I feel that in its current state it is perfectly understandable, but if you can improve upon it or can make a suggestion for its improvement, please do.

I also changed the second sentence to its current state. Before it read something like, "One writer notes...", but I felt that that didn't really speak to the fact that Dirr is practically the garden tree guru in the eyes of most gardeners. I also added "American" to make it clear that the unpopularity discussed is specific to the US in this case, as the tree is still used (and I can personally say it looks quite handsome) in northern European gardens. If you have a suggestion to improve the sentence, I'd be happy to change it, but as of this moment I can't think of a way to alter it without it losing some of its meaning. Perhaps we could replace "well-respected" with "eminent" or "important" or "celebrated" or "widely-published", but those all sound a bit non-neutral. Thanks for your comments Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 07:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about for the first: Unlike other members of the genus Ailanthus, it is found in temperate climates rather than the tropics. and for the second: Michael Dirr, currently professor of horticulture at the University of Georgia, reported that in 1982... (or something similar that shows his status without a value judgement).--Melburnian 08:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed to "a noted American horticulturalist and professor at the University of Georgia", is that better? Circeus 15:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both look better to me now. Thanks for the suggestions Melburnian and thanks for the fix Circeus. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 18:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at WP:APT (phrases to watch for) generally adjectives promoting the persons notability are best avoided. "Noted" is very mild, but I still think it falls in this category, but that's just my opinion, and others may not be concerned. Thanks for amending the first paragraph, it takes out a hiccup in the all-important opening. Overall, I think that this is an excellent article, and I support its promotion to FA status.--Melburnian 01:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article is not neutral. It is heavily biased towards calling the plant a noxious weed. Such designations should be in a law/government section or an appendix, and should not drive the whole discussion about a species. Wikipedia should have global application and not be specific to one particular region. The article is not factual for example it says that it grows extensively along railroads, but goes on to say that it only occupies 1.7% of railways. I wouldn't call that extensive or factual. What does it mean for a plant to "spread aggressively"? Or to be "very difficult to eradicate"? This kind of language has more to do with opinion and conjecture than with fact. The article is not stable. It contains way to much opinion and bias to remain in it's current state. Wiki skylace 00:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiki, your NPOV warring over this issue has earned you a block. The article (and the plant's status and opinions about it) are very well referenced, so I fail to see the issue here. Circeus 20:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good article that covers the subject. Contrary to the above oppose the article only discusses the invasive nature of the plant in a few sections (intro, distribution and a line in culture), and does so neutrally. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - after reading through the article several times, I can easily say this is FA material. The conflict from the above user's claims of POV in the article has only increased my confidence that this article presents a NPOV. It draws from a variety of sources and presents important factual information regarding its botanical history and cultivation and is extremely well-rounded. --Rkitko ^(talk) 20:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well written, accurate, and the standard seems to be that if the nominator is working on it, it should be promoted--and Circeus is one of our best editors, who actually works to understand the issues other editors have with articles. KP Botany 04:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.