Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia telmatiaea

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 14:14, 17 September 2007.

---

If ever an article was ready to go to FAC, this is. We have plumbed the depths of obscure sources until convinced we have referenced everything that has ever been written about this plant. We've scaled cyclone fences in search of photographs. We've harassed the world authority on Banksia to verify doubtful photos for us. We've polished and polished and polished. The end result: another WP:BANKSIA masterpiece. Hesperian 12:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Would it be possible to add a little more identification to the distribution map? I know it's western Australia but to many people there won't be anything easily identifiable about the part of Australia that's visible there. The other featured Banksia articles use a map of Australia, which I think would be preferable; Banksia ericifolia has an expanded view of the detailed local distribution which might be beneficial here. Mike Christie (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have reverted to Australia map for now. Hesperian 13:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I created the expanded view at B. ericifolia. I still think a crop would be relevant due to the particularly reduced range. Circeus 15:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Whilst this is a minor concern, with the image captions i noticed that one has a 'full stop' at the end, which none of the others do. Could it be made so that all images have the full stop or none of them, i just want consistancy. Twenty Years 13:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The captions that end in full stops are sentences. The ones that do not are phrases. Hesperian 13:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Whilst this is another minor issue, in the section "taxtonomy", there are three reference tags right next to each other, i think this looks messy, can they be merged? (as was done on the Hamersley FA) Twenty Years 13:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer not to, unless there is strong consensus for it, as I don't think it looks messy. Hesperian 13:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Another nitpick, the use of the term "Swamp Fox Banksia" is used twice in the main lead bit. Once next to the title of the article (which is fine), but i dont like the second use of the term under the image, it seems redundant. Twenty Years 13:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Actually, "B. telmatiaea" is just as redundant there as "Swamp Fox Banksia". I have removed the caption altogether for now. I'm not opposed to reinserting a non-redundant caption, if someone can think of one. Hesperian 13:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for FA - My few nitpicks are on very trivial issues, and i have no doubt that Hesperian knows what hes doing there. The article is a well referenced, quality piece of work, whilst i have little idea about banksia's, i know that this is quality. Twenty Years 13:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just noticed, at the bottom of the infobox shouldnt the name have a space in there, so it will read "A.S. George", there appears to be no space between the dot after S and George. Twenty Years 14:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. Normal typographic convention for author abbreviations. Circeus 15:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as minor contributor and co-WP banksia member (or is that WP co-banksia member..). Fulfils criteria. Nice and tight prose and as comprehensive as could possibly be. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't like the appearance of the taxonomic tree, why not group the species vertically like the higher categories, and the subgenus looks like a left-over. Other than that, I would Support Jimfbleak 18:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's become pretty standard in the WP:BANKSIA articles; it's in all their featured articles. Circeus 18:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jim, if you preview it your way and like what you see, I won't object to you changing it. But to my eye, grouping them vertically makes it look worse not better - it makes it all long, thin and left. Hesperian 01:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We've scaled cyclone fences in search of photographs. We've harassed the world authority on Banksia to verify doubtful photos for us. You have no idea how much that made me snicker. Support. I reviewed this article earlier this summer and every nitpick I could find has been dealt with very neatly. Circeus 18:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellenet work. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looking good - just a few questions from a reader's perspective:

• Why is it called Swamp *Fox* Banksia? - there's no explanation in the article nor through the B. sphaerocarpa (Fox Banksia) link that I can find.
• Is their any information available on propagation of this species?
• A close-up photo of the foliage would be useful - is one available (without having to climb a cyclone fence!) --Melburnian 04:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any information on the origin of the term "Fox", nor could I find anything on propagation of this species. We're aware of the need for a close-up of the foliage, but a bush-fire recently wiped out all the adult plants at the site where Gnangarra has been taking pictures, so it will be a season or two because an opportunity arises. Hesperian 04:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very informative article and, within the constraints of bushfire and fencing, a thorough treatment of its subject --Melburnian 05:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this image shows the leaf, its just not that interesting compared to other species but if you thnk it will improve I'll go back take some leaf specific photographs. Re the fence image the one I climb had the three strands of barbwire verticle not angled. Gnangarra 14:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you could just do a crop from that photo focusing on a single cluster of leaves - that would do the job, it would pick up on the pungent leaf tips and grooves down the centre of the leaves.--Melburnian 15:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too late Image:B telmatiaea leaf gnangarra.jpg taken this morning Gnangarra 02:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even better :) --Melburnian 03:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Fulfils criteria (and LOL re cyclone fences - any injuries?). Orderinchaos 04:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • not when climbing the fence, but lost a left boot to the clay soil of a storm water drain I had to cross to get the seedling photos last week Gnangarra 13:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Checked through criteria - looks fine to me - look forward to more articles like this on some of the even more obscure banksias SatuSuro 11:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid they don't come any more obscure than this - I initially chose to work on this species because of all the banksias it had the fewest google hits. :-) Hesperian 12:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as minor contributor, fence climbing photographer just dont tell anyone it was me ok :) Gnangarra 13:51, 14 September 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.