Talk:Aquilegia sibirica/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator: 18:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Yakikaki (talk · contribs) 21:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I did the DYK review of this article, but I'm happy to take on this review as well. I'll get back in the coming days with my first comments. Regards, Yakikaki (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment, I had to make some basic corrections to bring parts of the article into compliance with the guidance at WP:Wikiproject Plants. In particular, species names are italicized wherever they appear, including within references. Also, Wikiproject Plants requires the use of Plants of the World Online for all flowering plants, including determining if the taxon is accepted, its synonyms, and its distribution. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Additional comment, a glance at the 80 articles on plants considered to have met GA seems (to me at least) to demonstrate the difficultly of raising a plant article to GA. There are about 400,000 accepted plant taxa (and only 124,475 WP:PLANTS articles currently in existence), meaning that so far only 1 in 5000 is a GA. This article is currently quite short compared to the existing plant GAs, and lacks many of the sections mentioned at WP:WikiProject Plants/Template. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , would you like to make the review instead? Or were you just providing some comments? I was planning on starting the review in earnest later this weekend. Yakikaki (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Given these comments,, I would encourage you to continue the review. However, I am currently bring the article into compliance with these WikiProject standards (which are distinct from the standards for a GA). ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment, I'm also happy to look over the article again, since I've got experience with plant GAs. After you complete the review I can just do a quick sweep to check on any of the weird quirks that plant articles sometimes require. I also encourage continuing to add any information you guys come across as well! Fritzmann (message me) 17:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks, that would be very appreciated as I have very little expertise in botany. I'll start by making a general review, I hope to be able to come back later today or tomorrow. do what you need to do, I'll start looking at it as soon as I can though, and we can sort it out as we go. Best, Yakikaki (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds great all around. I'm actually extremely excited that four editors are invested in improving a single plant article. This was a spur-of-the-moment article I made after visiting a botanical garden last year and now it's grown into something I'm actually somewhat proud of (regardless of whether it passes GA). Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

First observations
First of all, thanks for taking the effort to write this article. It is already an enjoyable read about a very beautiful and interesting plant! Here are my more formal remarks for the review: OK, those are my comments for now. A bit of a mixed bag, obviously, with some low hanging fruit (by the way, there is no description of the Siberica's fruit!) and some that may take more effort. Let me know if you have any comments/questions/concerns about this and we can see how we can solve it. Best regards, Yakikaki (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The article is indeed quite short, and it seems to me it could be developed further content-wise. Three examples: The plant has been considered a medicinal herb in Mongolia. In "Antifungal activity of Mongolian medicinal plant extracts" we learn that "Aquilegia sibirica L. [sic] is considered a major therapeutic drug of Oriental Medicine, where the plant is usedin female diseases, bronchial asthma, rheumatism and cardiovascular diseases andmoreover it inhibitedS. aureus (Gonchig et al.2008)" So it seems you could elaborate on how and against what it has been used as a traditional medicine? Similarly, at least I find it picturesque that the specimen introduced to the US in 1933 were gifts from the Botanical Garden in Leningrad. (I at least would not have expected that botanists in the USSR remained in cordial contact with their US counterparts even during the height of Stalin terror.) A simple line about this could expand the article a bit and add to its interest for the general reader. Lastly: In common with other Aquilegia species, the Siberian columbine possesses nectar spurs. Crosses between Aquilegia sibirica and Aquilegia ecalcarata–the only Aquilegia species that lacks spurred pedals–have been studied to identify the gene responsible for spurred pedals As a reader I want to know more about this research, what was the result? So I would encourage a general closer scourging of sources and try to build the article even further. I think it is possible. You have a fair number of reliable sources quoted, but there may be more useful stuff out there. While there is no strict criterion for the article to be of a certain length it is true that it is short, compared to other GA articles on plants. Consider if you can expand the three sections which right now make up the article. The physical description of the plants is for example quite brief. Perhaps there is nothing much more to add, but take another look and see if you can't elaborate a bit more on it. Other sections (or info), like on conservation status, cultivation (is it cultivated? The Finns seem to suggest it could be cultivated, but plantlust dot com (what a name!) seem to have put theory into practice, already.) or etymology is lacking altogether. So to sum up, I would encourage you to try to grow (pun intended) the article a bit more; a bit more flowery (pun intended) language could help you a bit on the way there, as well.
 * Comment: These puns are outrageous–I love it. I'll be working through the remaining things I can expand upon.
 * The main image in the infobox is fine, though I miss the original botanical illustration (precisely because it is a botanical illustration and thus a "compromise of accuracy and idealized images from several specimens") and would have liked to see both of them in the article. The black and white picture is one of the most unclear photographs I have seen in my life. I think it confuses more than it helps.
 * There is no External links section. I would at least expect links to Commons and Wikispecies.
 * ✅ These are now linked, but not in a separate section. Let me know if you'd prefer I highlight these links with a separate section.
 * While it is not prohibited to have inline citations in the lead, the gist of the MOS in this regard is that they could be expected to be included there if it contains content likely to be challenged. It is not the case here, so I would suggest you to keep the lead clean of inline citations (though I won't be dogmatic about it).
 * Un-wikilink Mongolia and Kazakhstan; we usually don't wikilink countries.
 * ✅ I removed the links but did replace one link with Traditional Mongolian medicine.
 * Wikilink to 12th edition of Systema Naturae instead, and add "by Linnaeus" for a minimum of context.
 * If you look at the notes section of Symphyotrichum kentuckiense, you'll find some neat ways of including definitions (with little illustrations!) of plant shapes which I would suggest you try using here as well.
 * Put all measurements in convert templates, so that both imperial and metric measurements are given.
 * Aquilegia sibirica is native to the north-central Asian regions of Siberia, northern Mongolia, Kazakhstan, and Xinjiang. Evidence for a continuous Euro-Siberian vegetation is found in the distribution of the Siberian columbine considered alongside that of the Aquilegia vulgaris. The population in Middle Siberia is considered a quaternary relict (a population that once possessed a broader range in an earlier geologic epoch). What does "Evidence for a continuous Euro-Siberian vegetation" mean? Is it another way of describing its range? Because if so, it contradicts the first and last sentence. And is the population in Middle Siberia a separate population from the populations found elsewhere in Siberia, northern Mongolia, Kazakhstan, and Xinjiang? I think this sentence could benefit from more clarity and some elaboration.
 * Comment: I elaborated on this a bit and added additional context in the evolution section that might help readers understand why this is relevant.
 * I've been trying to find something to complain about regarding the prose but it is well written. I guess you are a native English speaker?
 * Comment: Thanks! I used to write for a living (well, for money, at least). I have a known problem with forgetting words in a sentence, so don't be surprised if one of my additions has an issue.
 * I've been trying to find something to complain about regarding the prose but it is well written. I guess you are a native English speaker?
 * Comment: Thanks! I used to write for a living (well, for money, at least). I have a known problem with forgetting words in a sentence, so don't be surprised if one of my additions has an issue.
 * Thank you for the in-depth comments! I can see light at the end of the tunnel on this but will need to adequately address all of the issues raised with a bit more research and recalibration. Unfortunately, that means I won't be able to begin to engage with this to the degree desired until the end of Wednesday UTC. I signed on to review another GAN and I owe it to the nominator to complete that review first before proceeding here. Your patience is deeply appreciated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Take your time, Pbritti. I know it seems like a lot of work but once you sit down and dig into it, I'm sure it will go quickly and smoothly. You have several dedicated editors who can help out. And the GA is definitively within reach. I'm going to be away myself Wednesday-Sunday. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Excellent, no rush on you getting back to this. I'll be available pretty consistently through next week and intend to avoid taking on any additional reviews until completing this one. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Quick update: I'll be working through these comments late Sunday. Life got far more hectic than anticipated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's get going! ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

How is it going? I see you addressed some of the points above but not all. Are you planning to address those as well? Yakikaki (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear back! Yes, I'm still working through the article, but I've tried implementing everything you've suggested thus far with the exception of the notes you mentioned (I may attempt that today). I'm in the final stages of expanding the article to a slightly longer length by including some more general information on Aquilegia (particularly comparisons between Eurasian and North American species) from a recent acquisition, Spring Wildflowers of the Northeast by the late Carol Gracie. I anticipate finishing my work sometime today or tomorrow and appreciate the help I've received from you and a few other editors. If you see anything specifically remaining as a barrier to a GA nod, please let me know! Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Good, it is coming along very nicely. Two small things from my side: the black and white picture is incredibly unclear. Can't we use another picture where you can actually see something? Secondly, the portal bar at the end includes "China" and "Russia" which I find a bit too tenuous of a connection. I mean yes, the flower is found there (but by no means only there), but so do millions of other things. I would suggest removing those links (and maybe add other, more clearly related to the subject?). What do you think? Yakikaki (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we're getting near the end of this review. I will go through the text one more time and see if I can spot any further minor things that need tweaking. would you like to run through the text with your botanist eyes as well? From my perspective I cannot see that the article is in any major breach of any of the GA criteria. Yakikaki (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll be on-Wiki fully in a hour, so response time will be rapid if there are last minute questions/concerns. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

OK, here are just a few more observations: Thank you for your hard word on this article. I think you have done as much as can reasonably be done, and exhausted the available reliable sources as far as possible. I fail to see how the article could become very much more comprehensive. Crucially, it also fulfils the six formal criteria for GA. It is well-written, verifiable and supported by reliable sources, as broad in coverage as it can get, neutral, stable and well illustrated. In other words: congratulations! I will promote it to GA now. It has been a pleasure working with you. Yakikaki (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A. sibirica diverged as a separate species from Aquilegia ecalcarata–the only Aquilegia species to lack nectar spurs–between 4.5 and 6 million years ago. There should be a space between the words and the dash, no?
 * See MOS:DASH. Both the spaced en dash and the unspaced em dash (as in this case) are permitted. I was educated on em dashes through undergrad, so I generally use them. However, if there's a WP Plants standard, feel welcome to implement it. ~ 21:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for pointing this out to me. It's fine then.
 * Siberian columbine is cultivated in rock gardens by hobbyists around the world. Surely not only by hobbyists? I suggest changing to "Siberian columbine is cultivated in rock gardens around the world."
 * I have noticed other sources reference other environments that the host cultivation of the flower, so also dropping the rock gardens bit. ~ 21:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * OK!
 * The following sentence, . Philip A. Munz identified that it had been hybridized with Aquilegia vulgaris to produce to produce A. ×garnieriana seems out of place. Move it somewhere more suitable (taxonomy and evolution?). For the moment the following sentence appears to be about this hybrid. Yakikaki (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please note my responses. Sorry for the later-than-anticipated replies. Your immense patience has not gone unnoticed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for fixing it. I was by my computer this evening in any case. I'll wait a bit for Fritzmann's reaction, and then get back to it. Regards, Yakikaki (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * By all means continue, everything looks great so far! Definitely on the right track and close to GA. Best Regards, Fritzmann (message me) 12:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am glad for the help of you and the handful of other editors who all contributed to this positive development! You all have been incredible to work with! ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)