Talk:Carex binervis/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Just the kind of article I like to review! Thoughts forthcoming. J Milburn (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The lead section is a little short.
 * ✅. It is now almost twice its former length. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Much better. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "15–150 centimetres (6 in–4 ft 11 in) tall,[2] although usually considerably less," I assume you mean that it's usually considerably smaller than the upper limit? That's not clear right now
 * ✅. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "The culms of Carex binervis are 15–150 centimetres (6 in–4 ft 11 in) tall,[2] although usually considerably less,[3] and triangular in section with rounded corners and often a single furrow." Long, complex sentence. Split in two?
 * ✅. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "keeled"? Link/definition?
 * ✅. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "6 mm (0.24 in)" This should be rounded to one significant figure, as the source only uses one (I assume?). See Template:Convert for how to do that
 * ✅. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "vegetative state" Link?
 * It is unclear to me where the link would lead; vegetative state refers to something quite unrelated. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Linked to Wiktionary:vegetative instead, where definition 2 is the appropriate one. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That works. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "10 cm (3.9 in) long" Again, should probably be sigfig'ed
 * ✅. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What colour are the seeds?
 * ✅. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Could we perhaps have a translation of the specific name?
 * ✅. I haven't found a source that breaks it up explicitly, but the meaning is unusually straightforward in this instance. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's fine in this case. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Smith writes" Wrote?
 * My understanding is that in scientific writing, prior publications are always described in the present tense. I can't say at the moment where I got that from, and I'll happily change it, but I thought the current wording was correct. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; it works either way grammatically, I reckon. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "C. punctata and C. flava." Do we not know the names of these hybrids?
 * They are not reported in either of my two main sources. They wouldn't have to have been given names, either. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Any significance to any of the synonyms?
 * None is apparent, and I haven't seen any discussion of them. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Proyecto Anthos" What is this? Does it need to be in italics?
 * It is the work from which the C. binervis page is just one part. The formatting is that coded into the template, rather than my choice. --Stemonitis (talk)


 * "World Checklist of Monoctyledons." Was that published as a book, or is it just a website? If the latter, probably shouln't be in italics
 * As with Proyecto Anthos, this is the template's formatting. World Checklist... is the work, and is formatted as such. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * ^ "Carex binervis green-ribbed sedge". Wild Flowers of the British Isles. March 11, 2010. Retrieved July 3, 2011." What makes that reliable?
 * I think the question, rather, is what makes it unreliable. The site is as a whole very professional. In this case, it repeats information presented elsewhere, but summarises it rather better. It is self-published, but I see no reason to consider it suspect. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the site, Peter Llewellyn is the author (certainly worth adding to the citation) and he seems to be an expert on wild flowers, so that does seem to be a legitimate self-published source. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Be consistent as to whether you give the publishers of journals. You probably don't need to. You could spell out "BSBI News" if you remove the publisher.
 * I don't think I can. The publication is called "BSBI News", not "Botanical Society of the British Isles News". For the others, I think it is right to omit the publisher. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Formatting consistency is a good thing; I'd say you need to do it the same way for all of them. I'll not push it if you'd rather keep it as is. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. I hadn't realised that BSBI News was already a redirect. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Only link journals in the references if you're sure they're notable- redlinks are good things in prose, but can be confusing in refs
 * I disagree. There can be no complaint of "distraction" in the References section, and having those links there makes it a lot easier for later editors. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember that there was a guideline about this, but I can't find it right now. It's not a big deal. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "M.D. F.R.S. P.L.S." What's that? If it's titles of his, they're not needed.
 * ✅. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a cat as this is found in Morocco, in addition to Europe?
 * ✅. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Undone. I had overlooked a footnote in the Flora iberica, which reveals that the Moroccan population is now a different species. That information has now been added, and the category removed. --Stemonitis (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You could consider using both images in the taxobox? There's an option for that in the taxobox template.
 * I considered it, but I think the existing placement is considerably better. I disapprove of attempts to cram every possible element into the taxobox. The binomial in the taxobox needs to be relatively high on the page, and the habitus image ought to be nearer the ecological section. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Any indication of how common this species is?
 * What do you mean by "common"? From personal experience, it is almost ubiquitous in the appropriate habitat, but not always abundant. None of the sources discusses abundance, as far as I recall.
 * That's fine. J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a little snoop around to see if there are any other sources available, but the article's not looking bad right now, by any stretch of the imagination. I've made a few edits. J Milburn (talk) 17:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A search for more sources didn't throw up anything of interest. One last thought: "an Atlantic distribution" could perhaps be a little more specific? J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have looked for a more detailed description, but have not found one. The term "Atlantic distribution" is [fairly] frequently used, but seems never to be precisely defined. Perhaps it is clear from the context what is meant, particularly given that a list of places is given straight after "Atlantic distribution" in the lead, and a list of countries after "oceanic distribution" in the main text. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, the article's looking great now, so I'm happy to promote. Short and sweet; with comparatively minor species like this, the article's rarely going to get much longer. The plus side of that, of course, is that you can get straight to work on another article! Good work, hope to see you back at GAC soon. J Milburn (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)