Talk:Amaranthus brownii/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) 10:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps merge the first and third sentences? The fact it is found on only one island should probably be in the first sentence.
    • Maybe, but I have it setup like a visual zoom, so that the reader is introduced to the Hawaiian Islands first, and then a specific island in that chain. I'll reverse it and see if that works for you. Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "spineless leaf axils, linear leaves, and indehiscent fruits" A little technical for the lead, especially without links.
  • "It is one of 26 vascular plants on Nihoa, 17 of which are indigenous, six alien, and three endemic only to Nihoa, including A. brownii, the Nihoa Fan Palm or loulu, and the Nihoa Carnation." Rather odd sentence.
    • I could use a colon instead of a comma at the end of "only to Nihoa" and remove "including". Would that help? Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have cleaned up the image page for File:Amaranthusbrownii low res.jpg, and the rationale looks sound, but the source link is currently dead.
    •  Done Domain name changed from ravenel.si.edu to botany.si.edu and URL modified. Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In note a, can I ask why some species are not linked? Don't be scared of redlinks.
  • "from 30–90 cm (0.98–3.0 ft)" from?
    •  Done Replaced with "grows to a height of". Viriditas (talk) 01:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "spineless leaf axils" Links/explanation?
  • "A. brownii grows during the moist, winter season from December through July in Nihoa's coastal dry shrubland habitat.[4] The plant can be found in shallow soil on rocky outcrops in exposed areas between 120–215 m (390–705 ft).[1]" Does this not belong in the next section?
    • In an earlier revision, it did. But as I began working on expanding the description of the plant, I realized that when I'm describing the pollination process, I'm also implying its presence in the coastal dry shrubland habitat. (Can you imagine how windy Nihoa must be?) So when we are talking about the plant description, we are also talking about its growing season and the type of habitat. The next section, distribution and habitat, talks more generally about the plant and its range, its relationship to other plants, number of specimens, and threats to its survival. Granted, there is some overlap, but that is to be expected, and as I argue, encouraged. If we move this material from the description to the habitat section, we lose the description of the plant and its ecosystem. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done I've moved it at the request of the reviewer with my objection noted above. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "C. S. Judd" Do we have a full name?
    •  Done Added Charles S. Judd to body. However, note B should remain as a cited sample entry from the specimen database. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a separate Taxonomy and naming section? Not certain that stuff belongs in "description".
  • How does this relate to other species in the genus? Any data?
    • I believe we already have everything we can find on the topic in the article. From Beacham's Guide to the Endangered Species of North America (2001): "This species can be distinguished from other Hawaiian members of the genus by its spineless leaf axils, its linear leaves, and the aforementioned fruit that does not split open at maturity." Viriditas (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Specimens were collected on July 27, 1980 by Derral R. Herbst and W. Takeuchi and of the FWS." Doesn't make sense. Also, saying something like "further specimens" would be good.
    • Removed "and". Viriditas (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added "last known specimen" per the source. Additionally specimens were observed three years later, but the 1980 trip collected the last specimens of the plant. Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "W. Takeuchi"/"C. Christensen"- full names?
    •  Done Wayne and Carl C. added to body. Citation use may differ. For example, the as quoted in style and the quoted specimen entry for the U.S. National Herbarium. Viriditas (talk) 04:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "forced to reproduce within its own circle resulting in genetic defects.[3] A. brownii is also forced" Repetition.
  • "(Schistocerca nitens), presented" lose the comma
  • File:NWHI Reserve.jpg has apparently been superseded.
  • "A. brownii was originally proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act on June 16, 1976, but was withdrawn on December 10, 1979 as out of date and incomplete" Specify that this is American/who makes the call as to whether it should be listed?
  • "Sesbania tomentosa (ʻohai)" What does this mean?
  • "As of 2010, A. brownii is one of" Past tense?
    • I'm not sure what the problem is here. This assessment came out in 2010. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerning the see also, I don't see the link with the bios, and I don't think the year article is that useful. However, perhaps a portal?
    • I take an encyclopedic view of a topic, viewing it as part of the chronology of time and place. The link for 1923 in science could apply inline, but some editors prefer to put it in the see also. The plant doesn't belong in Category:1923 in science (because it was described later) but it was discovered in 1923 during the Tanager Expedition. My preference is for an explicit link in see also rather than an embedded link, although it really doesn't matter which one appears so long as it is included. As for Alfred Moquin-Tandon and William Hillebrand, they are simply botanists who worked on or specialized in Amaranthaceae, and I believe their work was consulted by botanists who wrote about this plant. Again, we don't have a Category:Amaranthus specialists (and if you try and add them to Category:Amaranthus there's an editor who will remove them) so I've placed them in the see also as a pointer to interested readers. I'll try and incorporate it into the article or into a footnote if that is desired. Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Category:Flora of Hawaii not redundant to Category:Endemic flora of Nihoa?
  • The references could do with a bit of polishing-
    • Is it Smith, A.B. or Smith, A. B.? Smith, Alex B or Smith, Alex B.?
      •  Done The sources were not consistent, so I used a first name, middle initial if provided. Viriditas (talk) 04:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 13 lacks a publisher?
      •  Done Added Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. Viriditas (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Date format inconsistencies. Also, some have retrieval dates, others don't?
    • Sorry, but I am not following ref 15.
      • It's a bundled ref using the as quoted in Chicago style. I can improve the bundle format per recommended guidelines, if that's what you mean. Viriditas (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • In order for me to do this, I have to remove the cite template form every instance of multiple refs in order to change the period to a semicolon. In progress... Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm working on making this clear. FYI...it is now ref 14. In progress... Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, to explain: "Herbst & Takeuchi 6545; BISH" is the Bishop Museum specimen sample ID. That was supposed to be a note, not a ref, hence your confusion. My apologies. I'll convert it to a reference. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              •  Done Converted to citation and moved specimen ID to note section. Viriditas (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 16 has inconsistent author naming styles (as does 20, and maybe others)
    • Spacing in 24. I assume that's two separate references? Why not give them separate footnotes?
    • Similar issues (dating/naming inconsistencies) can be seen in the further reading section

The article seems well researched and referenced and the topic is fairly interesting, but it needs some further polishing before it is ready for GA status. J Milburn (talk) 10:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I have seven days to fix and address these issues? Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've got as long as you need. J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second read through[edit]

Ok, I'm taking another look through now. J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "monoecious and the male and female flowers are found together on the same plant." Is this not redundant? Perhaps something like- "monoecious; that is, the male and female flowers are found together on the same plant."
  • The description section feels a little short. I think I'm willing to let it pass at GAC, but if you can find any further information... Surely the original description would have a lot of description?
    • The original description was written in Latin in Christophersen & Caum (1931). However more recent publications, like Wagner et al. (1999), seem to have updated the description. They do seem to differ, but here is Beacham's (2000) as one example, presumably relying on Wager et al. (1990 or 1999 rev. ed.):

leafy upright or ascending stems that are 1-3 ft (0.3-0.9 m) long. The alternate leaves, 1.6-2.8 in (4-7 cm) long and 0.06-0.16 in (0.1-0.14 cm) wide, are long, narrow, slightly hairy, and more or less folded in half lengthwise. Flowers are either male or female, and flowers of both sexes are found on the same plant. The green flowers are subtended by two oval, bristle-tipped bracts about 0.04 in (1 mm) long and 0.03 in (0.7 mm) wide. Each flower has three bristle-tipped sepals. These are lance-shaped and 0.05 in (1 mm) long by 0.03 in (0.7 mm) wide in male flowers. Female flowers have spatula-shaped sepals that are about 0.03 in (0.7 mm) long by 0.01 in (0.2 mm) wide. Male flowers have three stamens; female flowers have two stigmas. The flattened oval fruit, approximately 0.03 in (0.7 mm) long and 0.02 in (0.5 mm) wide, does not split open at maturity to reveal its one lens-shaped, reddish black seed. This species can be distinguished from other Hawaiian members of the genus by its spineless leaf axils, its linear leaves, and the aforementioned fruit that does not split open at maturity.

Here is Wagner:

:Plants monoecious; stems erect or ascending, densely leafy, 3-10 dm long, conspicuously striate. Leaves linear, somewhat conduplicate, 4-7 cm long, 1.5-4 mm wide, most of the surface sparsely puberulent, usually more densely so toward base, the hairs multicellular, gradually tapering to a petiole, 5-13 mm long. Flowers green, bracts ovate, ca. 1 mm long, 0.7 mm wide, apex aristate; sepals 3, dimorphic, those of the staminate flowers lanceolate, 1.3 mm long, 0.8 mm wide, apex aristate, those of the pistillate flowers spatulate, 0.8-1 mm long, 0.2-0.5 mm wide, apex aristate; stamens 3; stigmas 2. Fruit ovoid, compressed, 0.8-1 mm long, 0.6-0.8 mm wide, indehiscent, the surface rugose, the apex with a short ring surrounding the stigmas. Seeds reddish black, shiny, lenticular. [2n = 34*.] Rare on Nihoa, 120-215m...

  • I'd personally put taxonomy before description, but I'm not gonna make you do that.
  • There's some inconsistency of the capitalisation of common names- "Goat's foot", "lovegrass", the foreign names, etc
    • Actually, there's no consistency in the sources. Some capitalize them, others keep it lowercase. I don't know if if this a regional variation or what, but my preference would be use lowercase, if that is acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done Reversed it and used uppercase instead. The naming convention is not clear. Viriditas (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I'm not wild on the spacing to keep pictures in the sections they're placed in, but this is not something I'm going to demand is changed.
    •  Done The left-aligned image in the conservation section slips into the see also heading, which looks terrible. Do you have a fix for that? Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A. brownii was originally proposed for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act on June 16, 1976, but was withdrawn on December 10, 1979 as out of date and incomplete." This doesn't make sense. How can a plan be "out of date and incomplete"? Presumably the listing or application was withdrawn?
    • From NatureServe: "Amaranthus brownii was proposed endangered on March 24, 1993 and determined endangered on August 21, 1996. It had been first proposed on June 16, 1976 (along with approximately 1700 other plants), but that part of the proposal was withdrawn on December 10, 1979 due to the proposal being over 2 years old and the portion proposing A. brownii was not finalized."
      • Yeah, so it was the proposal that was withdrawn. As written now, it says that the species was withdrawn. J Milburn (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sesbania tomentosa (ʻohai)" I think the reason this confused me is that throughout the rest of the article, it has been "Common Name (Specificus nameus)" and this bucks the trend.

This is a very good article. In style, it is a little different from a lot of similar articles I have reviewed/worked on; however, as this article shows, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Are you interested in taking this to FAC? With a stronger description section, this would have a shot. It's well written and researched, and the fact the subject is an interesting one is always helpful! J Milburn (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am now happy to promote. The blockquotes you've posted above suggest that there are a couple of details left that can be fit into the description section; if you are interested in FAC (and it couldn't hurt to try!) you'll want to pad that out as far as possible. If you do decide to take it further, you may be best off consulting someone who's bigger on plants- fungi are my area within biology. Talking to Casliber (talk · contribs) may not be a bad idea- he's a botanist with plenty of experience at FAC. If you do nominate it at FAC, peer review or just want another look through, you're welcome to contact me on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I suppose it's worth mentioning that you should comb the further reading to see if there is anything of use there. I mentioned earlier that the taxonomy section doesn't have much on its evolutionary relationship with other members of the genus- some of the sources look like they may have some information in. J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amaranthus_brownii/GA1&oldid=429540987"