Talk:Symphyotrichum lateriflorum

Ecology section
(moved from Hyperik's talk page —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 13:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC))

Hey, I added common names and split the Symphyotrichum lateriflorum Ecology section out into a few paragraphs. It will be easier to read on a small device, I think. The wasps and bees paragraph is kind of a run-on though. Tell me what you think and edit if you wish. :) --Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's necessary to link to BugGuide, DiscoverLife, or other references except in cases where the entry lists the insect as visiting the flowers of S. lateriflorum. I did a quick glance at a few of them and didn't see any mention of calico aster. Those refs would be better placed/fleshed out on the respective articles of the insect species. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 19:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was actually referencing their common names with sources, which would be better placed in the insects' respective articles. I'll make a note to get on that. Thanks! --Eewilson (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I just noticed a few typos which I can of course fix as we work together. The timing is good because I’m busy this week as well. Thank you so much! Eewilson (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:PLANTS template
(moved TO DO list to a TO DO section) --Eewilson (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

--Eewilson (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Should the subheadings be re-ordered to be like WikiProject Plants/Template?


 * Yes, for consistency, the subheadings/sections should follow the WP:PLANTS template. Someone will eventually fix this if you don't. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Will do! --Eewilson (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If each infraspecies is treated with a description (just highlighting differences from the species), distribution, conservation status, and history, then using this template would sprinkle each one into each section. Thoughts?--Eewilson (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

TO DO
--Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Add descriptions of varieties, cultivars, and hybrids.
 * History of "discovery" and naming.
 * DONE --Eewilson (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC): Add bug common names to respective articles where necessary and remove references here. --Eewilson (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * DONE Roots, Fruit --Eewilson (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * DONE Hybrids section bones --Eewilson (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * DONE Involucres/phyllaries --Eewilson (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eewilson (talk • contribs) 05:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Synonym list in taxon box
Should the synonyms in the taxon box only include the basionym and the previously known by? This would be Solidago lateriflora L. and Aster lateriflorus (L.) Britton, then other synonyms would be covered in a Taxonomic history section. --Eewilson (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , the synonym list in the taxobox should be comprehensive, but can be set to be collapsed by default (as you've done) if there are a large number of synonyms. Perhaps it would be appropriate to put the basionym and any especially prominent synonyms (e.g. the Aster combinations for species now in Symphyotrichum) outside of the collapsed section; such practice hasn't been proposed anywhere before that I'm aware of, but I'm not opposed to it. Plantdrew (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , I had actually thought about that! Good input. See what you think now. Thanks. --Eewilson (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Plantdrew (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

B-class!
thank you for the assessment and move to B-class. I have worked on it quite a bit lately and was pleasantly surprised. I’m interested to know what else would be required to get it to GA. Would it make sense for it to be nominated for that since there is a backlog? The review process for that would be likely to improve the article regardless of the end result. —Eewilson (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your work expanding the article. I don't have very much experience with the GA process. One suggestion is that images in the Description and Ecology section should be put in a horizontal gallery (I understand you're trying to have the leaf image in the leaf section, but the text that a givenn image renders next to is highly dependent on screen size/resolution).


 * I don't think the GA backlog would be a problem. The backlog develops when there isn't a good match between people interested in a reviewing a particular subject area and people interested in writing in that area. There aren't any plants in need of review right now, and the oldest un-reviewed GA nomination for a (non-fossil) organism only goes back to November 2nd.


 * has a lot of experience with plant GAs, and might have some other suggestions for you (or perhaps be willing to take up the formal GA review). Plantdrew (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The gallery is a good idea and I did that. Also discovered the Gallery template, which I did not know about. —Eewilson (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, I am happy to do either - i.e. either review if you nominate it at GA or do some working on it now before nomination (though I then can't review it). Either is fine by me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , : I think it would be great if you (Cas) want to do some work on it or want to review it. Whichever is up to you unless Plantdrew has a suggestion. I do know that for my own Wikihealth and the article's betterment, I should sit back and watch for a little while so it can get some more work on it by someone who knows more. It will also be a good exercise for me to learn strengths and weaknessess in this article and what I've done. Cas, which do you prefer? Working on it or reviewing it?
 * Okay, I will have a play with it to align it more like other plant GA/FA articles, and offer some ideas. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Feedback and where to go from here
Okay then, classically the idea has been to make an article prose-y, so an example is Xerochrysum bracteatum which I buffed to FA status some years ago (another daisy!! - I got keen after growing a bunch of them in my garden). So have begun rearranging to make text less chopped up and more flowing (downside is I am then not able to review this but I am sure someone else will eventually). Will post some ideas below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you. I've had ideas of adding content. Opinions on whether these items would be of value or not are welcomed by all. I have a tendency to get too detailed, too "bullet-pointy," too comprehensive sometimes, so these may not be a good idea. Ideas include the following:


 * More in ecology — co-occuring species. Or would this be in habitat?
 * could do it in either. If just co-occurring I leave in habitat Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked this and it could get huge and ugly because Symphyotrichum lateriflorum can grow in so many habitats. Co-occuring plant species are dependent upon the habitat. I question the value of going in too deep... have to think on that. --Eewilson (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Short descriptions of the varieties — the varieties are "controversial" for this species, I would say, but I think listing them without providing some description isn't of value in a Wikipedia article. The reader wouldn't even begin to know where to find that information, although I do because I've done that research (have been working on it anyway).
 * agreed - need to add/explain why a particular variety is considered distinctive.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Going along the lines of prose-y, maybe remove the bullet points and just put the synonyms of the varieties in a sentence or short paragraph.
 * agreed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That part is DONE --Eewilson (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Short descriptions of the hybrids, although I'm not sure that can be found by me without an idea of where to look.
 * yes if possible - also if wild-occurring then leave in taxonomy section. If in cultivation need to be moved to a uses and cultivation section, whuch is where cultivars should go too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The hybrids listed in the Hybrids section have been found in the wild. Pretty sure there's documentation on that... Come to think of it, this elaboration would be necessary. --Eewilson (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Short descriptions of the cultivars, or perhaps mention of the common ones that I found online.
 * agreed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Eewilson (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, is type specimen information of importance on Wikipedia, or is that really only for the more scientific Wikispecies? --Eewilson (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * location of type is important as it serves as an anchor for taxon name, so I'd definitely add Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also... :) Is peer review something that's done? I mean someone who is familiar with the species or genus? Is that part of GA review? --Eewilson (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Peer review is very quiet. Some articles come together easily and some just don't. Will see how this progresses but given we have plenty of examples of plant articles I think moving from GAN to FAC is ok provided the article gets a pretty thorough GA review. Some people really put an article through the cleaners (a good thing!) where as some are briefer. We'll see. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

MOre:
 * ... is a species of flowering plant native to parts of North America. - "parts of" is pretty vague and unhelpful, wouldn't it be better as " is a species of flowering plant native to eastern and central North America."?
 * DONE --Eewilson (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Type specimen
Here's what I found on the type specimen (actually, someone put it on Wikispecies page just as I was looking for it): The type is as designated above in second bullet point. In the article in Taxon, R&J also write regarding this species, "See summary of earlier type statements in Jarvis (2007: 863)." That reference is to the book Order out of Chaos: Linneaean Plant Names and their Types. It actually looks like a great book. Not sure where to locate a copy near me, but also not sure it's necessary that I do for this article. To my question: Given that the information in the bullet points is sparse regarding location, and perhaps cryptic to the user regarding lectotype, how would this best be worded in a Wikipedia article? --Eewilson (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Protologue locality: "Habitat in America septentrionali. Kalm."
 * Lectotype: Herb. Linn. No. 998.6 (LINN), designated by Reveal & Jarvis, Taxon 58: 981 (2009).
 * Good question. A bit busy with RL chores. Will have a think about it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have something started here: User:Eewilson/sandbox. Also includes my notes. --Eewilson (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks really good - key is that all assumptions need to have been discussed in other sources. This took me some time to get my head around Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What took you time to get your head around? That all assumptions need to have been discussed in other sources? Or what I wrote in my sandbox? --Eewilson (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant me, years ago. Conforming my writing to sticking to references and not writing original research. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah. Yes. I have had to rely on the facts in my genealogical research and writing, although that is different because it is original research, and it really should be.--Eewilson (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Type specimen updates
I have found a nasty can of muck with the specimen situation for this plant. It's one for which Linnaeus did not specify a type specimen. Thank you, Carl. There have been several who have addressed this issue and the incorrectly labeled specimens in the Linnean Herbarium, the latest being Reveal&Jarvis in 2009. But comparing what they wrote to what I found online, either they got it wrong with a typo or they just got it wrong. It appears that Asa Gray got it right, and even there in 1882 in the article draft I reference (see 998.9), he associates the two, but still he treats Solidago lateriflora and Aster diffusus (another now-synonym) as two species. Or whatever. Heck, I'm kinda getting confused so I'm stopping for the night. Can you read my updates from today, please? User:Eewilson/sandbox --Eewilson (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You may find this of interest since it has to do with the type specimen of Symphyotrichum lateriflorum. Go to my sandbox to see what is being worked on for the Wikipedia article for this species. There are conflicts between what Reveal&Jarvis state is the lectotype and what the LINN specimens are. Eewilson (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your message! Essential content of Order Out of Chaos can be found here, with irregular and incomplete updates: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/linnaean-typification/ . The account on Solidago lateriflora has been updated with the typification by Reveal & Jarvis 2009. |Herb. Linn. No. 998.6 apparently belongs to Solidago and is strikingly different from |Herb. Linn. No. 998.7, the other specimen in discussion. I think the best way to solve this issue is to contact Jarvis. -RLJ (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for those links (I've been looking at them online) and your input to contact Jarvis. I have been thinking that may be the way. I am certain that 998.6 is Solidago sp. as it grows in my backyard. So does Symphyotrichum lateriflorum, and I can pick it out pretty well. I think Asa Gray may have had the right idea with specimen 998.9 being what was Aiton's Aster diffusus which is now one of Symphyotrichum lateriflorum's synonyms. I would like to see this plant have a proper lectotype. Eewilson (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To clarify, both species (and other Solidago and Symphyotrichum spp.) grow wild in my backyard. Eewilson (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 998.7 is definitely not Symphyotrichum lateriflorum, nor does it seem to fit Linnaeus' description of Solidago lateriflora. It appears to be, to my eye, Solidago flexicaulis, the broad-leaved goldenrod. Eewilson (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The convention of formally designating type specimens post-dates Linnaeus. Without looking into the specifics here, I'll note that many Linnaean species haven't had types designated until very recently (there is a project working on designating types for all Linnaean species). For types that have been designated longer ago, there may be some issues with the typification (as seems to be the case here). The status of a type for Homo sapiens is rather murky (it's probably Linnaeus himself, but see Talk:Carl_Linnaeus/Archive_2). Plantdrew (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * When did formally designating, or attaching, specimens as types to plant definitions begin? Eewilson (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A set of nomenclatural rules proposed in 1892 was the first to recommend typification, but there were a lot of competing rule sets at that time. 1924 is when it first appeared in a widely (but not universally) accepted rule set. The 1892 proposal didn't invent the type concept out of thin air; some botanists had already been designating types. I don't know who was the first to do so nor when they did it. Plantdrew (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Eewilson (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I emailed Dr. Jarvis yesterday regarding the type specimens. I will let you all know when or if I hear from him. Eewilson (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yesterday (11 December 2020), I received a response from Charlie Jarvis. He is now retired and says he is not in a position to pursue this. He is not familiar with the North American species — that was part of Jim Reveal's contribution. Dr. Reveal passed away in 2015. Dr. Jarvis said this is something that should be looked into and directed me to contact a specialist familiar with this species for advisement. He suggested Nesom and Semple. I will be contacting one or both of them next regarding the inconsistency of the type specimen and possible re-review of a lectotype (or appropriate type) for Solidago lateriflora L.. Eewilson (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wrote to Dr. Semple and Dr. Nesom yesterday, 15 December 2020, about the type issue. In the meantime, what I have written in my sandbox in preparation for the article has content that is not dependent upon any future action by anyone regarding correcting or addressing the inconsistencies with the type specimen. It reports the state as it is. No rush, Cas. Just whenever real life lets up on you a bit. Eewilson (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Taxonomy type specimen additions ready for review in my sandbox
In my User sandbox, I have information on the type specimen (or lack thereof) ready for your review. It includes all notes and sources. Once you either make changes to it (feel free to do so) or let me know what needs to change, and once it becomes satisfactory, I will add it to the article then move on to the next set of changes. Eewilson (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC) I also added a translation of the Solidago lateriflora of Linnaeus from Latin to English which was done for me by a fellow iNat user. However, it should be reviewed by a Wikipedian. Eewilson (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Are there Wikipedians in the Plants Project who are taxonomy geniuses? I have multiple questions about typification of this species and nomenclatural precedence that I need to ask for the article or seek some others to write certain parts. Eewilson (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry - been really busy IRL - another user who might be interested is Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure you can try me. I'm no formal taxonomist, but I know my way around the code. Circéus (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! I'm going to add the taxon history intro to the article and leave off the type information until I hear more from the non-Wikipedia experts (e.g., Semple, Jarvis). —Eewilson (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay great -will have a proper look soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Status update
I'm sure you're busy IRL. You have a busy life according to your profile! I can imagine especially right now. My real life is mostly this article :) right now. It has come oh so far! About all that is left are cultivars (which I am currently working on and enjoying, especially since I didn't think I'd find much but am), hybrids (which I have begun and will be hard and not nearly as fun as cultivars), possibly a bit more in the phylogenetics department (probably will be in the same literature containing hybrid information), and a lead expansion which is in my sandbox. Before GAN, there may be an additional sentence about the TYPE for the species and already are for some for the varieties. If you could spare a few minutes to review the lead expansion in User:Eewilson/sandbox, that would be great. Otherwise, I can just put it out there. —Eewilson (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * that looks fine. I recommend slotting it in now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you! —Eewilson (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Status update — 17 January 2021
Seeking input on the following from you two and anybody else.
 * Name (updated)
 * Description >
 * Lead paragraph (new)
 * Roots (expanded)
 * Florets (expanded)
 * Chromosomes (updated)
 * Taxonomy >
 * Variety flagellare (obtained source and expanded)
 * Variety spatelliforme (updated)
 * Distribution and habitat >
 * Habitat (expanded)
 * Ecology >
 * Reproduction (new)
 * Uses (expanded significantly)
 * Gardening - cultivars - am I doing it right? What should be changed?

There have been many updates, but currently seeking input on these items. Work is still in progress. Thank you in advance. —Eewilson (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC) & Eewilson (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC) & Eewilson (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Ready for full review
It's ready for your full read and review. Can't say it has everything, but if you can and have the time, can you take a look again? Eewilson (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * damn - sorry - meant to look when you pinged above. will get to it soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * People have criticised putting in names from other languages (unless indigenous ones).
 * Dang, I tried hard to find those, too. Well, if they want them out, they can come out. -E


 *  As a vascular plant, it grows from roots, and as a eudicot, it has two seed leaves upon germination. - I'd leave this sentence out as too general and off-topic. Is like labouring the point a dog has four legs or somesuch....
 * Okay, but I liked that sentence. ;) -E ✅

more later (gotta sleep...nearly 1am here!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hope you have time to look at it more this weekend. –Eewilson (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is looking good - annoying having so many damn varieties but there you go. Am looking more now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The Similar species section needs citations - also needs how they are distinguished - a published key might help here.
 * Can I just take it out? (just kidding - I'll try to find something) -E
 * It is native throughout its current North American range. - could be folded into the beginning of the previous para...
 *  Symphyotrichum lateriflorum has been in cultivation in Europe since the mid-18th Century, and possibly prior. - I think this sentence is redundant.
 * You probably mean to kind of take it out. I think the section needs some sort of introductory sentence, so I changed it a bit, but this may not work either. See what you think of Symphyotrichum lateriflorum has been grown in the gardens of Europe since the mid-18th Century or prior. Also open to what you may want to put there.
 * Or forget that, this is better: The earliest record of Symphyotrichum lateriflorum in gardens was of a synonym of S. lateriflorum var. horizontale called Aster pendulus. It was cultivated by an English botanist named Philip Miller by 1758. ✅ Eewilson (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't mention conditions it'd like in the Gardening section....
 * Oh, right...-E Eewilson (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Growing conditions in for everybody who has them available, including the main species (with propagation info) in the first paragraph of Gardening. ✅ Eewilson (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Growing conditions in for everybody who has them available, including the main species (with propagation info) in the first paragraph of Gardening. ✅ Eewilson (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, made some changes - see above. Do you think that using this page from inat would be an acceptable "Similar Species" reference? https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/122249-Symphyotrichum-lateriflorum - click on Similar Species tab. Don't know that I could Wayback it for an archive, though. —Eewilson (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They don't say how they can be distinguished though Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * right Eewilson (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Think I could do a table here? –Eewilson (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * * Temporarily commented out the Similar species subsection while I work on sources. —Eewilson (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Good luck. FWIW, I think giving it a whirl at GAN is worthwhile now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Minor comment
This article is smock full of interesting information. Good work! Still, I would like to voice a minor complaint.

A sentence in the intro says:

As composite flowers, each flower head has many tiny florets put together into what appear as one, as do all plants in the family Asteraceae.

There is a rule that the intro should contain some of the info in the other parts of the article. In other words, it should not contain info that is not also somewhere else. This info is not in the paragraph about the flowers.

On the other hand, we should try to not write the same things in many articles. This sentence says it is true for all species in Asteraceae. That's a lot of articles. Say I copied this sentence to all of those. Would that be OK?

I think it should be removed.

The phrase As composite flowers, adds no information about the world.

Each flower head has many tiny florets put together into what appear as one. Would serve as a good description of what composite flower (Compositeae) means. Maybe there is an ambition to teach the expression composite flower. But that is not the task of this article.

--Ettrig (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right! Thank you for reading the article, for your thoughtful comments, and I will remove the phrase accordingly. —Eewilson (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Very nice
Very nice,. I haven't been contributing, but I have been watching. I don't know how Good Article works but this probably qualifies now. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I just thought - maybe would be happy to review this for GAN Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, ! --Eewilson (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you say? Would you do this GAN review? --Eewilson (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Give me a little time, but yes. Choess (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --Eewilson (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Minor edits
Thank you for the spelling correction of development in the citation in the article Symphyotrichum lateriflorum, as well as the removal of the extra space after the Southern Methodist University Wikilink. This article is currently under review for GA by and was nominated by me. A GA review of an article this detailed is quite a bit of work, and every change can add to that work, so my rule of thumb is before I make any changes to an article, see if it is under review for GA or FA by looking on the Talk Page. The removal of the extra spaces in the templates and for the images really wasn't necessary but didn't cause problems. However, you did make some formatting changes that caused a few problems and that need to be reverted back. There were some paragraph breaks that were intentional in the Cultivars section. I find using Preview helpful before I Publish changes. Take a look under the Cultivars section and see how the 'Coombe Fishacre' and 'Lady in Black' formatting is now changed and compare to how it was in the previous version. —Eewilson (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Eewilson I have undone my edit and completed the spelling fix only. The AWB cosmetic fixes are a one-size-fits-all approach and are generally OK, however do need to be reviewed, so I can appreciate that if you have spent time creating text alignment having it undone in such a manner can be frustrating. There is no way I would have time to review talk pages however what I would suggest for such editing situations is that the  tag is placed on such articles.  When AWB sees this tag it makes a recommendation to skip the article, which I always do, though of course I can’t speak for other editors.  If the ‘offending’ item is later still present then it can be picked up in another edit cycle. - Neils51 (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Neils51! —Eewilson (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Question/suggestion
I wonder if the prose would look better with the plant morphology terms in piped links instead of parentheses. (There are over five hundred parentheses in the article.) So, for example, instead of "Leaves have fine, net-like (reticulate) veins and little to no hair (glabrous) except for the key characteristic of hair on the back (abaxial) main leaf vein (midrib)."

we might have "Leaves have fine, net-like veins and little to no hair except for the key characteristic of hair on the back main leaf vein."

One thing that comes to mind is MOS:SEAOFBLUE, which advises us to avoid placing links next to each other. But altogether, the version without the parentheses seems more legible to me. Surtsicna (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, it is something to think about. I do think avoiding a Sea of Blue is important (perhaps my motivation for using parentheses, or perhaps I just think in parentheses?). I also was keeping MOS:LINKCLARITY in mind. For a botanical article, I think there needs to be a balance between not talking down to a botanical-level reader and avoiding obscure text for the non-botanical-level reader. Hence, the use of the botanical term and its very short definition. Reticulate = net-like. I've started doing an alternative format. See what you think of this from Symphyotrichum novae-angliae which I'm tackling next for GA nomination. This is as I have it currenty:

"The stems, leaves, and phyllaries are covered with hairs (called trichomes) that are actually tiny glands on tiny stalks (called stipitate-glandular, or covered with stipitate glands or stalked glands)."


 * An alternative to this could be the following:

"The stems, leaves, and phyllaries are covered with hairs called trichomes that are actually tiny glands on tiny stalks called stipitate-glands."


 * Italicizing the introduced term follows MOS:WORDSASWORDS. The alternative removes the parentheses and the over-explaining of stipitate glands.
 * I hesitate to dive into changing this in Symphyotrichum lateriflorum right now since it just got approved GA last mont, but perhaps when I look at it for FA maybe? What do you think of the example I gave? —Eewilson (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Or even better would be as follows:

"The stems, leaves, and phyllaries are covered with tiny glands on tiny stalks called stipitate-glands."


 * The hairs part isn't even necessary. —Eewilson (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Trichome article talks about glandular hairs, which are what these are, but doesn't actually have the term stipitate. It should, so that could be (and should be) augmented, which I can do. —Eewilson (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The balance you mention is certainly achieved by the use of parentheses. I was wondering about the italics too, but I suspected (correctly) that you had a good reason for them. My concern is that they make it less clear what is English (even if ultimately from Latin) and what is Latin. MOS:LINKCLARITY seems to suggest alternatives in such cases. Surtsicna (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, italics are an issue, too, for that very reason. MOS:WAW says to use double quotes instead. So I'll change those. Thank you! You've been thoughtful again with very constructive comments and good ideas! Always great to see others want to make Wikipedia better. Feel free to suggest as much as you want. The more eyes the better! —Eewilson (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I was surprised to see that nobody had reviewed the article for a month. It is just so inviting. I love how you dedicated a section to the horticultural use of the species. That is rare, and I suspect deliberately so. I will take a look at the congener article too! Surtsicna (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you again! It was nearly five months before someone picked it up for GA review. I figured it was probably because it is such a long and detailed article. Any review is a commitment, but this one extra so.
 * The WikiProject Plants has a Taxon Template that outlines what should go in a taxon article and in what order. I find it incredibly helpful.
 * I tackled this species first because I fell in love with it. It grows everywhere around here, including in my yard and at the edge of the woods behind my house. I had to know all I could about it and found the Wikipedia article was an itty-bitty Start-class article fresh out of Stub and told me virtually nothing. That was last September, so here we are. :) —Eewilson (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Eewilson, I just realized that medicine articles is where I picked up the idea to pipe scientific jargon. See Leprosy, for example. Food for thought, if nothing else. Surtsicna (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I just learned tons about leprosy — more than I ever wanted to know. :) It is a smooth read because of the way it handles technical terms. You are right. Would you like to approach some more of this article, maybe make the suggestions on this talk page before implementing them since it is GA? Two heads are definitely better than one. —Eewilson (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Preparing to place this as a Featured Article Candidate (FAC)
I am planning to place this article as a Featured Article Candidate (FAC) in two weeks (about 24 September 2021) and would like to ask for any comments and any issues regarding this article that may need to be addressed. The article was approved GA in June. Please leave your comments here, and thank you in advance. —Eewilson (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)