Talk:Ornithogalum umbellatum/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Great to see a flower here at GAN, it is a rare sight. Starting soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Solid quality throughout. I see three possibilities for further improvement:
 * Thanks, all good points. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  16:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The lead is too short. It should provide a summary of the whole article.
 * Agree, expanded. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  16:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is too much technical speech, it is very difficult to understand for a non-botanist. I am aware that technical terms are unavoidable. But you could still try to replace with common terms where possible, and explain important terms/conceps (e.g. using glosses). "Caniculate" is neither linked nor explained. Maybe have a look at the description section of Xerochrysum bracteatum, which makes some attempts reduce the amount of technical terms that the reader has to look up.
 * That is something I have been struggling with to find the right balance, ever since my first major genus GA (Narcissus). Yes, I spotted caniculate as soon as I looked at it once I realised it was under review (in record time I might add!). Rewritten, and added both a floral diagram and formula to help. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  17:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I think I have answered all your questions, and expanded the article in a number of areas. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  17:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * For a GA, the article is on the short end.
 * Yes, species pages, if the species is not of economic importance, are more challenging in this regard. I am not in favour of what some people do, padding it out with genus level information. Outside of the botanical literature there is a wealth of information, but I prioritised reliability, which is low (see below). Reviewig. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  14:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't feel completely informed, there is so much that could be added from the sources that have been used. Just a few examples: You mention the reproduction by offsetting bulbils, but nothing about dispersal by seeds (in the German Wikipedia I read that ants help with seed dispersal).
 * I did look at the other language versions (none GA), of which certainly the German is the most thorough, but of course only as good as its sources. I didn't find the ant story persuasive, and anyway seed dispersal is negligible. Note added to address same. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  17:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing about preferred soils.
 * Soil tolerant - see Distribution and habitat --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  21:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Does it grow solitary or in groups?
 * Clumps usually, occasionally solitary -- see ecology --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  21:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe add that it was Linnaeus himself who made the bible connection? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was aware of this story, which was inherently problematic, knowing Linnaeus. If it was true, he would have called it O. stellatum. There are no authoritative sources to support this, nor can it be found in Linnaeus's works. The truth is that both the names Ornithogalum and star of Bethlehem had existed long before Linnaeus time. He merely adopted and formalised the genus name. I added a historical note to illustrate this. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  16:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the only Linnaeus connection I am aware of, occurs on p. 287 of Praelectiones in ordines naturales plantarum (which I have not read) where he suggests that so-called Dove's Dung, eaten during a siege of Samaria, in the Old Testament (2 Kings 6, 25), was not literally bird excrement but Ornithogalum, or "bird's milk". I may put a note to that effect, but I would rather know exactly what he said, first. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  17:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Retrieved a copy, and reviewed. Note added to this effect. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉  17:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for all those fixes, I think the article has improved a lot. I'm passing now, congratulations! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)