Talk:Liliaceae/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Shoebox2 (talk · contribs) 01:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I'm pleased to introduce myself as the reviewer for this important and interesting article. I hope to have my preliminary review up in the next few days. Shoebox2 talk 01:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Preliminary review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Article is well-organized and positively beautifully sourced. It covers all aspects of the topic and is scientifically precise. Would not be in the least surprised to see it emerge as a future FA candidate. At the moment, however, when not concerned with purely scientific details the writing style and content is a bit shaky, and some (more) work may be needed to make the scientific information accessible to the lay reader. I'll provide a brief outline of any issues within this template, to be followed by more specific examples/recommendations below.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Prose is beautifully clear, if you're a research biologist. The majority of Wikipedia readers are much more likely to be laypeople looking for a reasonably accessible overview of one of the most familiar, widely-cultivated plant families. I see from the talkpage that an effort has been made to ameliorate some of the technical description, which is appreciated, and certainly some use of scientific terminology is unavoidable in the interests of encyclopedic accuracy. However--speaking as a reader whose knowledge level could be classified as above-average but not systematic--I feel like some work could still be done. By contrast, where pure scientific description isn't involved, the prose could be tightened up in a few different places. More detailed recs will be listed below.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Lead is possibly a bit short, but gets the major details across well. Layout is entirely consistent with the standard for botanical articles. Despite the aforementioned issues with general readability, the overall tone is not dry but appropriately (and rather pleasingly) dispassionate yet fully engaged with the subject, in the classic textbook style. 'Fiction' is obviously n/a. List format under 'Description' is a bit unusual (and could possibly use some tightening up) but is not inappropriate as per the MOS, and the table is handled correctly.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Will naturally be going into this in more detail as the review progresses, but on initial once-over/spotcheck (and taking into account the obvious concern for scientific detail visible throughout the article) this appears to be extremely well handled in line with the standard for science articles.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   An impressive use of what's clearly a wide cross-section of the available scholarly material on the topic. A few issues with specific statements are listed below. Am a bit concerned that many of the sources are more than five years old, but again, under the circs will AGF that these represent the most up-to-date info available.

That is correct, an enormous effort went into developing the modern concept of the Liliaceae, but that is now a stable concept. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

1. C. No original research:

   Does not appear to have any particular axe to grind beyond presenting the topic accurately.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Everything is there that should be (save for a few things I'll list below), although right around the 'Ecology' section there's an abrupt (telling?) shift from lavish detail to terse sentences. :) It's not strictly required for a GA, but if the intent is to improve the article further with an eventual eye on FA status I would strongly recommend expanding the 'Culture' section in particular. These plants are second only to the Rosaceae in terms of their long, rich history both as garden cultivars and as symbols, and the article can easily accommodate more information on both fronts -- the 'Tulip Mania' alone is worth a paragraph, and the fleur-de-lys possibly another.

underway --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

1. B. Focused:

   As noted, possibly slightly too heavily weighted towards the scientific, but as an effort has in fact been made to cover all major non-scientific aspects of the topic I'll let it pass.

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Appears to fairly cover all controversies within the topic (mainly within the 'Taxonomy' section) with due weight given to important sources.

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article in its nominated form appears to have one primary editor, the nominator. Talkpage indicates civil and constructive discussion to be the norm.

4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Have run a spot-check on about two-thirds of the images and am satisfied they meet all relevant criteria.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   There are a lot of images, which is entirely appropriate for such a large and varied plant family. However the choice of subject and organization in relation to the text seems somewhat haphazard, esp. the first strip down the left side. It needs to be made clearer why these particular species/features are being hilighted.

Basically because given the aforementioned difficulty of scientific accuracy and providing readability to the layity (see Talk here and also at WikiPlants) a picture, where available, speaks a 1000 words. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand and agree. Just keep an eye on placement within the article, as well as clarity in the captioning; ensuring that both make the maximum logical sense will boost the effectiveness of your strategy many-fold. Shoebox2 talk 02:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Overall, frankly, there's not much here that needs fixing. I'll have my list of specific fixes up as soon as possible.

Detailed fixes

Lead:

• "...with six colored or patterned petaloid tepals," --If I'm understanding the linked articles correctly, this basically means 'petals'? If so, perhaps it'd be best to just call them that in the lead at least, the better to provide a quick intro to the subject.

 Done Since most readers won't understand the difference between tepals, sepals and petals, or periantha and perigonium I added a short description --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• "superior ovary." Wikilink here please; it's a common term I know, but rather an unusual one to encounter out of the blue.

 Done Interestingly some Botany GA reviewers complain abut over-linking, but I think it is reasonable to see the lead as a separate article - many people won't read further --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• "The leaves are linear, mostly with parallel veins." --Could stand a bit of elaboration on the shape of the leaf, and indeed the general growth habits.

 Done Reworded in simpler terms and elaboraated, although I was not sure what you were specifically alluding to by 'growth habits' --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

First off, my apologies for not responding more quickly; real life got in the way. Re: growth habits, I was meaning the basic form of the plants, ie. are they tall or short, bushy or single-stemmed, etc etc. However given the newly detailed mention of the leaves, also the ref to bulbs/rhizomes, I'm not going to press for more coverage. The average reader will now have enough info to get an accurate idea. Shoebox2 talk 02:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

We both have real worlds, and probably real gardens to tend so progress will be staccato --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Several have bulbs, while others have rhizomes." --Again, feels like it could be elaborated on; how about "Several are propagated from..."

 Done reworded and linked --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• Speaking of which, lead statements aren't generally required to have cites unless they represent really controversial or outlandish claims (think what might come up in the articles for "abortion", for example). I can't imagine this statement is that problematic, and would recommend using the cite in the text below.

 Done I have heard a variety of opinions on this point --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Mm. The argument that makes the most sense to me is that the lead should act as a summary of the article content; therefore it's reasonable to expect anything mentioned upfront will be explained and sourced below. Shoebox2 talk 02:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• The cultural section--esp. as newly expanded--needs representation in the lead.

 Done added brief paragraph --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Great, however it feels like the new paragraph duplicates the existing info somewhat. You could probably get away with just adding the last couple of new sentences to the previous paragraph. Shoebox2 talk 02:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You lost me there - I could not see anything in the third paragraph of the lead that was in the previous two? Length of paragraphs here is debatable - i know some people run everything in the lead into one large paragraph --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• "Some species are poisonous if eaten and may cause serious complications, such as renal failure in household pets, especially cats." Besides the fact that the first comma really should come after 'if eaten', this statement (and indeed, the entire treatment of this subject in the article) is oddly over-specific. In the lead this info can simply be presented as "...may cause serious health complications in humans and household pets."

 Done agree, simplified --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Description:

This is probably the the most challenging part which I, and doubtless others have struggled with - how to be scientifically accurate and maintain readability. As I have explained on WikiPlants, to fully explain every term on every botany page would appear to be counter-productive. It is certainly more readable than most Floras readers might consult, but retains the format--Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• "The diversity of characteristics is of considerable evolutionary significance." Why?

 Done added short note, and link to Evolution section where it is explained more fully --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm thinking this opening sentence generally would be an excellent place to provide a quick, layman-oriented, overview of the particularly unique aspects of the family that would assist in understanding the barrage of botanical terminology coming next.

Surely not a 'barrage'? However a short summary was provided in the introductory paragraph and could be expanded --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

: Done After considerable thought as to who would want to read a detailed morphology without a good botanical education, I thought a compromise was in order. There is now a general description in simple terms with a few technical terms explained, as an alternative to the more detailed but scientifically accurate description. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, 'barrage' was a bit of an exaggeration. :) Placed in context even as far as you have with the new opening paragraph, it seems much more reasonable; you've done a lot towards making the article more accessible right there. Shoebox2 talk 02:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• I don't have the knowledge to make more than very generic recommendations as to the use of that same terminology throughout the rest of this section. I would only reiterate my recommendation that the effort to de-mystify it for the lay reader continue insofar as is possible. In particular, I'd give serious thought to what details are unique to Liliaceae or otherwise essential for a thorough understanding of the subject, as opposed to what would only be really necessary to serious researchers (some of the info under 'Fruit' strikes me as falling into the latter category). Some context for the info would also be helpful; without giving in too far to popularization, you might still think about why the reader should consider any given bit interesting. Finally, in place of multiple parenthetical breaks you might consider adding a system of reference notes (as seen in this Featured article), which would give you the ability to explain esoteric terms both in more detail and without so much danger of breaking up the narrative flow.

I am not really in favour of adding yet another section (notes) to clutter the page, and for reasons explained above doubt the value of explaining scientific terms for every taxa since they are not unique to this family. I have added explanations to all the pages that are linked too - and also to the Glossary page. This requires more thought. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I can see your point re: clutter, and appreciate the explanations. With the addition of the new paragraph and other tweaks you're now definitely at GA standard for readability, but I'd encourage you to continue thinking about it en route to FA review. Shoebox2 talk 02:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Inflorescence/Flower -- I know they're technically separate topics, but I feel like these two sections could be combined into one, under 'Flowers', without sacrificing too much accuracy to the cause of reading clarity.

I don't favour this, the inflorescence is the arrangement of flowers in relation to the stalk, as opposed to the anatomy of the flower. merging them would make it harder for the reader to find the information they want, and the text denser. I am following standard practice in botanical description. i am also trying to make this WikiPlants policy - at the moment there is none other than what I have provided. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, you make a good argument re: avoiding making the text denser. Also agreed that an encyclopedic article should follow standard descriptive practices where possible. Shoebox2 talk 02:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Same goes for the 'Fruit' section and the apparently random paragraph at the end describing the seeds.

I am confused about this. Fruit/seed has a more intimate relationship than Inflorescence/flower, the seed being within the fruit. Consequently I merged these unlike the former because the Fruit part was relatively brief. I don't see any 'random paragraph at the end'. 'Seeds' starts at the second sentence and continues to the end of the paragraph, where the embryo is described --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, was a bit vaguer (and more careless in the reading) than I needed to be there. The 'random paragraph' I was referring to is the one beginning "Phytochemical analysis of the seeds..." 'Random', because I'm still not quite getting the point of entirely separating this info out from the 'Fruit' section? Shoebox2 talk 02:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

 Done Now I see. Well the WikiprojectPlants Template requires that phytochemistry be addressed separately, which I did. This paragraph applies to all of the plant not just the seeds. Retweaked and rearranged --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• "[Flowers are] generally large and showy," -- Fine as far as it goes, and the pictures help, but I'd still elaborate a bit on the range of colours. Perhaps loosely divide the descriptions by major genera if the differences warrant it (eg. "Lilium and Tulipa flowers range from white and yellow through shades of pink, orange and red, while those of Fritillaria...")

I can't see how this could work - both lilies and tulips can be any colour or combination of colours, some Fritillaria can be a very complex mixture, just to start with. I can say that --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable compromise. (Strictly speaking I don't think any of the Liliaceae come in pure blue, but that's a minor point.)Shoebox2 talk 02:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Well we don't want to be pedantic - as it says on the Tulipa page - " Tulip flowers come in a wide variety of colors, except pure blue (several tulips with "blue" in the name have a faint violet hue)." We could get into defining "pure blue" but I don't want to. I just don't think colour is something one can generalise with in the Liliaceae, if one is including cultivars that is. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Can the chromosomal info either be removed, expanded or combined into any other paragraph? The single short sentence isn't grammatically fatal, but it looks distinctly awkward.

 Done--Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Taxonomy:

• Not a fix per se, but I did want to chime in with my total agreement with the decision to spin the larger taxonomy debate off into its own article. I can't imagine how daunting this article must've been with all that additional info in place.

ok --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• "...which is based on phylogenetic principles," -- I realise that this is gone into in more detail below, but the phrase could still use a quick explanation right off the top. (Ideally 'clade' and 'subclade' could as well, but looking at those articles I can see where the concepts would be difficult to summarize.)

 Done reworded --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• "While the ten genera of the Lilioideae subfamily are characterised by contractile bulbs and roots, and a Fritillaria-type embryo-sac (megagametophyte with four megaspores), the five genera constituting the Streptopoideae and Calochortoideae subfamilies form another distinct group." -- I'm sorry, but I've read this over several times, as carefully as I can, and still have no idea what it's trying to get across. Clarification (possibly in shorter sentences) please?

 Done reworded --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• "the broader or stricter sense of the circumscription" -- Can be shortened to 'the broader or stricter circumscription'.

I think that would lose the emphasis on 'sense' as used here, i.e. broader sense or stricter sense --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ecology:

One problem is much of this is already covered in other sections, eg description, distribution, toxicology, uses --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• I feel like there's significant info missing here regarding the plants' relationship to their environment. Are they an important food source in any case, for instance? Are they important to any particular species of pollinator?

Frankly I am stumped by this, keep in mind the limitations imposed by the above, and the relatively small size of the family s.s. . I added a bit more on food under Uses, but most food Liliaceae have now been shifted to other families, e.g Alium. There really is not much additional information out there. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• The 'Pests and Predators' section is uncharacteristically missing a couple key cites, one for the claim that the Scarlet lily beetle is 'an important predator' and one for the tulip breaking virus' connection to the mania.

 Done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Re: the 'tulip breaking' virus, it might be worth mentioning that at least one modern tulip cultivar, the Rembrandt, is specifically designed to show a stable variant of the 'breaking' effect.

 Done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Cultivation:

• The entirety of the paragraph under 'Floriculture' is one long run-on sentence, pls break into shorter ones as needed.

I believe you rewrote this --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Both 'Tulips' and 'Lilies' could stand the additional mention of the most popular cultivated varieties -- not to turn this into a garden catalogue, but I'd expect to see mention of the tiger, Easter and Madonna lilies, for example. Under tulips, perhaps mention of the wide variety of shapes: cottage, parrot, lily-flowered etc.

 Done--Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• It also might be worth mentioning, if not here then elsewhere, the numerous non-Liliaceae plants falsely called 'lily', such as the cannas and daylilies (esp. the latter, given that they were once classified as part of the Liliaceae).

 Done--Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Under 'Propagation' there were a few very minor oddities that I've mostly fixed, however am still unsure if 'division of the bulbs' should be listed as a distinct process. Is it not the same thing as offsets and/or twin-scaling? Or has it just been too long since I've worked in a garden? (Also, shouldn't twin-scaling be included in the subsequent list of asexual propagation methods?)

 Done reworded and rearranged to avoid confusion and link to Heuser's propagation --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Toxicity:

• "Some species are poisonous if eaten and may cause serious complications, such as renal failure in household pets, especially cats which can develop renal failure from Lilies, particularly Lilium longiflorum, the Easter Lily" -- This is awkwardly redundant as written, and--with all due respect to the furry critter currently purring on my lap--feels like the specific focus is in the wrong place. I'd put the priority on describing what the serious effects are on humans (or, alternatively, explaining that there aren't any), like so: "Some species are poisonous if eaten and may cause serious health complications. [Sentence describing human complications or lack thereof]. Some species of lilies, particularly the Easter Lily, have been known to induce renal failure in cats and other household pets."

 Done reworded and expanded - it seems this is basically a cat problem --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Speaking of the cats, the PDF link in ref #53 is broken.

 Done replaced --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Culture:

• Really pleased with the expansion of this section so far, will leave off detailed critique for the time being on the understanding that it's still a work in progress. Would just gently advise paying attention to the logical flow from subject to subject within the individual paragraphs.

 Done - I had originally kept this short since it dealt with individual genera rather than the family as a whole --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, and agree that you want to keep an eye on not derailing the article. What you've got there now is I think just enough info to be satisfying to the reader without distracting from the larger point. For FA purposes you might want to tweak things further just to ensure everything's important and sourced accordingly, but I've no problem passing it as GA-standard. Shoebox2 talk 02:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That's the lot for now. :) Impressed with the rate of response thus far, have no problem putting the review on hold for a few days to allow for further improvements as outlined. Shoebox2 talk 02:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

ETA: Am still impressed, and would like to warmly commend the nominator's continued willingness to work to improve the article. Once the last few fixes are addressed, will be ready and pleased to pass it. Shoebox2 talk 02:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that basically addresses this round of suggestions --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It does, and as promised I'm more than happy to pass the article. It's improved enormously just in the week or so it's been under review. Honestly, I don't think there's much more required to prep it for a FA nom, save perhaps to keep an ongoing eye on the prose (believe me, you think this last week's been bad, at FAC it will be relentlessly copy-edited down to the very last stray comma). You've been a pleasure to work with -- please don't hesitate to let me know if I can be of any further help down the line. Shoebox2 talk 01:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

GA status log

• GA 10 March 2014

Reviewed 22 November 2016 --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)