Talk:Ficus maxima

Comprehensiveness

A quick look - gotta get off the keyboard in a minute. Two quick things -

• I am sure there are some birds which eat this plant, so listing a few species'd be good.

• Is it used in cultivation or revegetation?

Will have a proper look later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

GA review

This article is very nice but it fails on good article criterion number 3; 90% of the content concerns figs in general, not Ficus maxima. That extraneous content needs to be removed, and replaced with content about Ficus maxima. Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. --Una Smith (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is silly to demand that an article on Ficus maxima restrict itself to discussing only the synapomorphies of the species. Reader want to know about the characteristics that it shares with the genus, as well as the characteristics that make it unique.

On reflection, the notion that the article should only discuss synapomorphies is so off the wall that I suspect that it is not actually what Una meant at all. More likely she has used a wee smidgen of hyperbole to describe what is, to my mind, largely a stylistic issue:

An article about Ficus maxima should, broadly speaking, contain only statements about Ficus maxima. Fortunately, this does not prevent you from discussing characters of the genus, because any characters of the genus that are actually relevant to the species can be recast as a statement about the species. For example, the sentence:

Like all figs it has an obligate mutualism with fig wasps; figs are only pollinated by fig wasps, and fig wasps can only reproduce in fig flowers.

breaks down into:

1. Like all figs, Ficus maxima has an obligate mutualism with fig wasps;
2. Figs are only pollinated by fig wasps;
3. Fig wasps can only reproduce in fig flowers.

Two out of three of these statements are prima facie irrelevant; they are statements about the relationship between Ficus and fig wasps. What you need is to convert your sentence into something that breaks down into three statements about Ficus maxima:

1. Like all figs, Ficus maxima has an obligate mutualism with fig wasps;
2. Like all figs, Ficus maxima is only pollinated by fig wasps;
3. Fig wasps reproduce in the flowers of Ficus maxima.

The impossibility of casting the "can only" in (3) into a sentence about the species, proves that it is, truly, irrelevant to this article.

The solution may be something as simple as

Like all figs it has an obligate mutualism with fig wasps: it is only pollinated by fig wasps, and fig wasps reproduce in its flowers.

Hesperian 00:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Hesperian got it exactly right, on reflection. The article as written now reads as if recently derived from an article about Ficus. What I suggest is this: describe what is most notable about F. maxima, and compare and contrast F. maxima to other members of the genus. That involves, as Hesperian says, recasting your sentences. Think of it as inverting them, if you like. That's a really big and tedious job, I am sorry to say. --Una Smith (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How's: Like all figs it has an obligate mutualism with fig wasps; F. maxima is only pollinated by the fig wasp Tetrapus americanus, and T. americana only reproduces in its flowers (There is the problem that T. americanus appears to consist of more than one species, but for the time being, both species are T. americanus...and if they can only be distinguished on a genetic basis, sorting out what's what may have to wait until the Linnaean system is replaced by something else). Guettarda (talk) 20:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If T. americanus is restricted to F. maxima, then that's great. (but note that you've used both americanus and americana in that sentence.) Hesperian 23:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that and fixed it in the article. Missed it here. Guettarda (talk) 02:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

GA review redux

I'm rather confused by this review. The article is most definitely not "mostly about figs in general". And 90%? Err...(scratches head, puzzled). Maybe 10%? Guettarda (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(The above moved below the header, out of limbo due to the transclusion.)

Hi. I'm curious about how you came to the conclusion in your GA review of Ficus maxima that "90% of the content concerns figs in general, not Ficus maxima". Based on straight text (no header, no figures, no refs, no taxobox...all of which is F. maxima-heavy information) I came up with 1675 words, 8939 characters. After the "general" information (reproductive behaviour that's sourced to general references, information about taxonomy of the genus and subgenus) I have 1451 word, 7684 characters.

I am puzzled by your review. Guettarda (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(The above copied from User talk:Una Smith)

Guettarda, I will try to show you what I mean. Here is one paragraph from the article:

Male wasps mature and emerge before the females. They mate with the females, which have not yet emerged from their galls. Males cut exit holes in the outer wall of the syconium, through which the females exit the fig. The male flowers mature around the same time as the female wasps emerge and shed their pollen on the newly emerged females; like about one third of figs, F. maxima is passively pollinated. The newly emerged female wasps leave through the exit holes the males have cut and fly off to find a syconium in which to lay their eggs. The figs then ripen. The ripe figs are eaten by a variety of mammals and birds which disperse the seeds.

I bolded the only part that seems to be specifically about F. maxima. I chose that paragraph at random; a similar high ratio of background information to specific information occurs in many other paragraphs. That much background information can work in a stand-alone article about F. maxima, but does not belong in an encyclopedia article. --Una Smith (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm, that's a pretty extreme interpretation of that paragraph to prove your point Una. Guettarda has also pointed out it is that information which is general. The general information provides context for the article. Remember that wikipedia is not paper and numerous articles have overlaps with other ones. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What is the topic sentence of this sample paragraph? The paragraph is about how pollination is achieved by fig wasps in Ficus. To me, the topic sentence (clause) seems to be "like about one third of figs, F. maxima is passively pollinated". I expected the next sentence to explain what "passively pollinated" means, but it does not. The article Fig wasp fills in some of the key details, but also does not explain "passively pollinated". If that isn't the intended topic, then one should be added, such as "Like most other figs, F. maxima is pollinated by fig wasps." That could be followed by the rest of the paragraph detailing how fig wasps do that.

I don't understand this at all: "Male wasps mature and emerge before the females. They mate with the females, which have not yet emerged from their galls." Does this mean the males enter another gall? But they are wingless. Do they walk from one gall to the other? I also don't understand this: "the females exit the fig. The male flowers mature around the same time as the female wasps emerge and shed their pollen on the newly emerged females." Does this mean the male flowers are somewhere outside the synconium? --Una Smith (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is much better feedback and clarifies issues. Guettarda is the expert in this area; it is sometimes tricky to avoid lapsing into either jargon or assuming a global familiarity with material among the readers which is not there. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I am here to review this article, not an editor. Let's try to focus on the article. --Una Smith (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm (?), I was. I mention Guettarda as an expert as he is the best one able to resynthesise the paragraph you mention into something more accessible to those unfamiliar with the topic (much better than what I can). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Casliber, do you now accept my judgment that the article is not up to GA? Do you have something to add to the review, to help improve the article? --Una Smith (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, once expanded upon, the above point made was a very good one. I can't speak for Guettarda but suspect he will agree. thankyou for that. I'll leave a wave of improving to Guettarda initially and chip in if he asks for it - it is a fairly concise subject and he is much more familiar with it than I am. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, do you see now why I judged the article not up to to GA? Do you accept the judgment? --Una Smith (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. This is something I can work with. Guettarda (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda, do you accept the judgment? --Una Smith (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Though "do I accept it?" is immaterial, as far as I am concerned. "What do is need to fix?" is the only question that I'm concerned with. I didn't understand your objections as you initially phrased them. Guettarda (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It is good that you asked for clarification instead of getting upset. --Una Smith (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Three years later

Okay then..where were we? What else does it need...hmmm.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• The description section needs trunk/bark/growing habit in it. Mentioning the sap etc.

• ...other content looks ok - maybe a web of science scan to see what else turns up.

• Other sticking point is the Reproduction much of which is general, but surely some is needed to give some context to the species.I'll ask Circeus.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ficus maxima. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~jea/PDFs/kashanipour.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090919181449/http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/duffy/arb/348-354/353.pdf to http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/duffy/arb/348-354/353.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) 08:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)