View text source at Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia ericifolia

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 21:04, 31 July 2007.

Banksia ericifolia

[edit]

I am nominating a fourth Banksia article for FAC, this is the first one in several months - I feel it is equivalent to the others; Banksia integrifolia and Banksia epica being the most recent. It is easily the most comprehensive account on the plant online, thoroughly referenced (inlined and cite format), neutral and stable. I feel the prose is the equal of the others and have copyedited wih some help from others. It has a concise lead summarising the article and the images are free (I took most of the photos meself!). There are 2 redlinks which I can fix promptly. Leave me input and I'll address promptly. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this is a good article. The end section - the actual finish up of the article - might like a see also section, and a few more external links might be nice just to round the article off. otheriwse I think this looks good to be ed. Cheers -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm not a huge fan of See Also sections (but can be persuaded) - I put a link to another official botanic gardens page and there's commons links etc. at the bottom. Can you think of anything on wiki that you feel would be good to have at the bottom for quick reference or which somehow cannot be linked in the main article? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Come to think of it - not really. So scratch the see also section if you want. But I think maybe, if at all possible, a few more externals might be nice, just to sort of fill up that big white space at the bottom. If you cant: thats fine too. These are very minor things we are talking; all I am saying is discountable. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Long discussion of my (Circéus) comments, now all addressed
  • Conditional Support If these issues can be clarified:
    • "The bark is a smooth grey colour with lenticels, but can become thicker with age."
      • Thickness has never been mentioned so far...
        (OK -expanded and reworded to reduce ambiguity)
    • "Old flowers fall off the cones, often to reveal numerous small dark grey to dull black finely furred follicles."
      • What cones? Not the best way to introduce the fruits... And "often" is just confusing the matters
        reworded to "Old flower spikes fade to brown and then grey with age; old flower parts soon fall, revealing numerous small dark grey to dull black finely furred follicles." - not sure whether to add "on the naked spikes" to the end - more explanatory but starts to get repetitive. - feel free to add if you feel it sounds better
    • "they are ridged on each valve and remain closed until burnt by fire."
      • What? the flowers?
        (follicles - done)
    • "Occasionally, plants occur which produce multiple flower spikes of varying sizes."
      • I'd think pictures in the article makes it obvious that most plants produce multiple flower spikes...
        (no, multi- spikes are pretty rare - I was just chuffed it occurred on the one in my garden - hence the nice photo which is the only one to diplay multi-spikes)
        Ah... it sounds like multiple spikes are produced by the plant overall. THat is what needs to be clarified: multiple spikes from the same point
    • When "macrantha" and "microphylla" are mentioned under "taxonomy", the level at which they were placed should be mentioned. Also, what exactly has Salkin noted? In the current formulation, it seems to be the publication of "macrantha".
      (Sort of - he noted the difference of the northern populations and named them "microphylla" though this was not an official description. Alex later concurred there was a difference and officially named them as subsp. macrantha)
      Further clarified. Circeus 16:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "to the west of coastal areas."
      • Considering the location discussed, is it necessary to specify "to the west"??
        (you're right - removed)
    • A distribution map would make a great addition (almost necessary, in fact) to this article
      (agree - one is coming...)
      Yay! Circeus 16:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "nectariferous birds"
    • The prose in the cultivar list could probably still be improved. Keep in mind my previous suggestion about a centralized list, too.
      I've gone through the cultivar section and ensured all are grammatical sentences as I realise alot was in note form still. I'm not convinced paragraphs is (are?) the best way to go as it will look a bit listy then anyway. I am happy to see what consensus arises with further review. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it's probably the only format that can be used if the cultivars have no articles and have to be in the parent species articles. At least those are well-developed.Circeus 16:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Circeus 23:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support From an outsiders point of view, i think the article looks pretty good, meets all the criteria. My only nitpicks are the following:
    • In the image in "description" the name of the plant is bolded, yet in other pictures the name isnt? it just doesnt seem consistant. Personally, i dont think it should be bolded in the first place. (yoicks! well spotted and removed)
    • I dislike it when two or more citations marks are eight next to eachother, it looks ugly. You may wish to "merge" them (see reference 22 on Hamersley). This happens several times in the article, 26&27, 5&6, 7&8. (It's late here - will have a look at Hamersley tomorrow as I've not seen it done elsewhere)
    • (Previously mentioned) Massive white gap at the bottom of the page (ext links). Maybe you could slide some of the commons/source boxes up little bit, so that there isnt the white gaps. (will tweak away tomorrow)
  • Apart from those few nitpicks, i think the article is ready for the star. Twenty Years 14:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
formatted EL's into a table, to remove the white space. Gnangarra 15:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding combined notes, I don't think it works very well for complete references (as opposed to abbreviated ones). Multiple footnotes are alright. Circeus 11:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComment This article covers the subject matter very thoroughly. It is well-written in general, but there are just a couple of sections that I think need attention as follows:
Taxonomy
In the second paragraph of the taxonomy section there is a bit of a rapid-fire namedropping (Salisbury, Alf Salkin, Theile, Mast, Eric Jones, Shaun Havery) mostly with no introduction / context /link to indicate who the people are i.e. botanist, taxonomist etc. Also I think that consistently including the first names of all individuals for their first mention in a WP article (in contrast to a scientific paper) would be a bit more “user friendly” for a wider readership.
(OK, I've clarified several of the more important ones with nationalities and occupations where known and first names - I had meant to do this but forgot, so thanks for reminding me)

:Cultivation

As in nature, Banksia ericifolia inflorescences attract birds to the garden. (need to state that the bird attractant qualities of this plant are a factor making it popular in cultivation, but the wording which makes a rigid distinction between what happens in gardens and nature doesn’t work )  Done

:Note that named cultivars are propagated by cuttings. (Need to drop the slightly terse “Note” and add a small expansion explaning why) --Melburnian 08:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)  Done - though pondering whether to move this sentence to cultivar section actually...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My comments done and dusted; I fully support this article's promotion to featured status. Nice work. Melburnian 12:35, 30 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.