Talk:Ficus maxima/GA1

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. 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:
 * Like all figs, Ficus maxima has an obligate mutualism with fig wasps;
 * Figs are only pollinated by fig wasps;
 * 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:
 * Like all figs, Ficus maxima has an obligate mutualism with fig wasps;
 * Like all figs, Ficus maxima is only pollinated by fig wasps;
 * 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)