Talk:Eriophorum angustifolium/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk · contribs) 20:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this. Comments in a few days. Sasata (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, here's some comments to get us started. On this first read-through, I focused largely on prose and MoS nitpicks. I'll read again more thoroughly when these points are addressed, checking sources as I go, and I'll perform a literature check to try to assess if the "broad coverage" criterion of WP:WIAGA has been met. Sasata (talk) 04:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "Typically reaching around 60 centimetres (24 in) in height, flowering begins in the spring, around April to May, with small unremarkable brown and green spikey flowers, which, after fertilisation during early summer, bloom with distinctive white bristle-like seed heads that resemble tufts of cotton thread; combined with its ecological suitability to bog, these characteristics give rise to the plant's alternative name, bog cotton." This is a very long sentence that could benefit from splitting.
 * "in the Temperate, Subarctic and Arctic regions of Earth." why are these capitalized? (links would be good here; check for capitalization later too)
 * "and wound-dressings; and the indigenous peoples of North America use the plant in cooking and treatment of digestion problems." semicolon inappropriate punctuation here, perhaps just split the sentence
 * "Following a vote in 2002, Plantlife International designated Eriophorum angustifolium the County Flower of Greater Manchester, as part of its British County Flowers campaign.[2][3][4]" why does this fact need to be triply cited in the lead? If it's cited in the article text, these could be removed.
 * there's some extreme text squeeze between the taxobox and the double image in description, suggest rearranging to avoid this
 * "At maturity, the plant's height and spread is 30–50 centimetres" Both the height and spread are this value? This seems inconsistent with the RHS spread measurement later of 1–1.5 metres.
 * "Fully grown, it has a tall erect stem — usually no more than 30 centimetres (12 in) in height" So where does the extra 20–50 cm in height come from?
 * - I don't know sorry - I'm just sticking to the source material at this point.
 * Would like to see this fixed, as it doesn't add up. Perhaps just use one source for all of the measurements? Sasata (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "2–6-millimetre (0.079–0.24 in)" ensure that the number of sig figs in the convert template output are the same going in
 * I suggest abbreviating common units of measurement like centimetre and millimetre (use abbr=on parameter in convert template if you agree)
 * pendunlces -> spelling
 * I don't understand the need for quadra- and penta-citations for what should be uncontroversial information. I suggest, where possible, thinning out the multiple citations to what you consider to be your best sources(s).
 * - I hear what you're saying, but there is validity as to why this is employed. Partly because a sentence is contructed from multiple sources (say three facts in quick succession), and partly to "sure up" a point and highlight where sources converge. Equally, I wouldn't like to be the one that says a source is better than another.
 * If a sentence is constructed from information that comes from multiple sources, it is conventional to place the citation directly after the information (clever use of punctuation helps here). This allows the reader to easily verify where the material came from. Sasata (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "In winter and spring, Eriophorum angustifolium is described as "a rather dull plant",[12] but considered "simply breathtaking" in summer and autumn" who describes and considers it in these terms (sounds a bit weaselly otherwise)?
 * are the single quoted words later in the same sentence necessary?
 * "Although also attributed to naming the species,[15] the German botanist Albrecht Wilhelm Roth published this name in 1788, [18] in a description of the species which cited Honckeny's work as the original.[19]" I don't quite understand the first part of the sentence; if Honckeny named the species, how is the naming also attributed to Roth?
 * - I'm tempted to say I don't know, but it the short answer is "in error". A quick Google search shows that Roth is given credit to the species in a minority, but fairly decent quality of sources. However, investigation shows that Honckeny was the original and recognised as the original by Roth himself.
 * perhaps, for convenience to the readers, you could make the Roth link go directly to the page discussing the species?#
 * I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this sorry.
 * Instead of linking to the first page of the book, link to whatever page the species is discussed. Sasata (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * any chance of including a citation (and link too, if possible) to the 1782 Honckeny protolog?
 * I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this sorry.
 * The protolog is the publication that contains the original description of a species. Many older botanical texts are now archived online, and it would be a benefit to the reader if this publication were linked directly from the article. Sasata (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * fibreous->fibrous?
 * nomen confusen->nomen confusum
 * has been been any molecular phylogenetic work done on the species?
 * No idea sorry! Might have to ask WP:PLANTS for their input on that one.
 * Feed Eriophorum angustifolium phylogeny into Google Scholar. On a very cursory look it appears that the species has been used in studies of Cyperaceae and its constituent tribes, but that there isn't a study of the genus in particular. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "is native in the Northern Hemisphere" -> native to (also in lead)
 * link acidic soil to soil pH
 * what are the green dots on the distribution map? They aren't discussed in the text.
 * "lives for over 2 years." per WP:ORDINAL, number less than ten should be spelled out (check throughout)
 * "As a seedling and young plant, Eriophorum angustifolium is eaten by sheep and cattle,[29] and a variety of geese species,[30] but is otherwise "generally pest free"." Is the implication that sheep, cattle, and geese are pests? Can the final three words be paraphrased to avoid a quote?
 * ✅ (reworded)
 * "However, they also serve as a natural thermal insulation, by conserving the temperature of the plant's reproductive organs by trapping solar radiation."
 * "Although "difficult to grow under cultivation"" rephrase a non-essential quote?
 * "The Royal Horticultural Society state that" states
 * what is deadheading?
 * there are several duplicate links in the text. I recommend using Ucucha's duplink script to find these quickly.
 * what are the green dots on the distribution map? They aren't discussed in the text.
 * "lives for over 2 years." per WP:ORDINAL, number less than ten should be spelled out (check throughout)
 * "As a seedling and young plant, Eriophorum angustifolium is eaten by sheep and cattle,[29] and a variety of geese species,[30] but is otherwise "generally pest free"." Is the implication that sheep, cattle, and geese are pests? Can the final three words be paraphrased to avoid a quote?
 * ✅ (reworded)
 * "However, they also serve as a natural thermal insulation, by conserving the temperature of the plant's reproductive organs by trapping solar radiation."
 * "Although "difficult to grow under cultivation"" rephrase a non-essential quote?
 * "The Royal Horticultural Society state that" states
 * what is deadheading?
 * there are several duplicate links in the text. I recommend using Ucucha's duplink script to find these quickly.
 * what is deadheading?
 * there are several duplicate links in the text. I recommend using Ucucha's duplink script to find these quickly.


 * Thank you for the feedback so far - I have commented under each bullet where I have or (deciededly) have not taken action thusfar. There are a few I've not yet commented on, but will endevour to resolve shortly. Further thoughts/approval/disappoval/support etc are of course welcome if desired. --Jza84 &#124; Talk  21:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment
It's been two weeks since there has been any action on this page or on the article. What is the status of the review at this point? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There was reviewing activity that same day, but the article itself hasn't been edited in over a month, despite a request on the WikiProject Plants talk page by the nominator, on April 13, for someone to help get this over the finish line. Under the circumstances, it's probably getting time to close this as unsuccessful. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. The main editor hasn't been around for over 10 days, and there's hasn't been any movement for quite some time. Closing this review now. Sasata (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't around to answer the discussion at the time. I tried my best to resolve the GAC pointers above, even asking WP:PLANTS to help with those elements I couldn't - but sadly a lot of the above (which to be fair was more towards the FAC scale!) was beyond my abilities on this one. Just wanted to get that apology out there and thank all those who reviewed, tweaked and supported the article since. It's in much better shape now! --Jza84 &#124; Talk  17:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)