Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adenanthos cuneatus/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 16:55, 8 February 2011.

Adenanthos cuneatus

 * Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (that makes no sense..), I have a Noah complex and like pairs of things. Have recently got Adenanthos obovatus and reckon this is the equal of that one, so have at it. It's nice and short and I'll try to respond quickly, this is a co-nom with Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * Current ref 20 - APNI - needs the bare url formatted with a fancy title.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ref fixed now, I guffed the name and it did something in the handy APNI template we use...Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments: This seems to be a very well-written article. Although I find the subject interesting, I have little direct experience with the scientific side of plants, so my comments are largely about style. This is my first time performing an FAC review, so please bear with me.

One common issue I see is a bit subjective and can vary from writer to writer, but it seems to me that commas are a bit overused in the prose. I've noted some of these cases below along with some other issues. Sometimes commas are necessary, but it's easy to overuse them; they can interrupt the natural flow of a sentence.

*For consistency, what would you think about using the "convert" template on measurements (meters, millimeters, et cetera)? There are some cases, such as in the second "Description" paragraph, where only metric is given; but in other areas both metric and imperial are given. Applying the convert template throughout would make this more consistent. With or without the template, though, I think these need to be consistent throughout the article.
 * Oops. Missed them. imperial added now. I find the convert template lacking sometimes when rounding to say 5's or 10's of miles/kilometres. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that the convert template isn't perfect for all situations. Omnedon (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

*I see that reference 23 doesn't specify a page number, unlike the other similar references.
 * d'oh! Missed this one. Now fixed and numbers added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

*Lead: "The single red flowers are insignificant, and appear all year, though more so in late spring." I believe the first comma is not needed. Would it be better to say "especially" rather than "though more so"? Just a thought.


 * IMO, the first comma can stay or go. [See below for more.] - Dank (push to talk)
 * I've become more fornd of commas to demarkate ideas. I am not fussed either way, and 'especially' is good. 22:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

*Description: "The wedge-shaped (cuneate) leaves are on short petioles, and are 2 cm (0.8 in) long, and 1–1.5 cm (0.4–0.6 in) wide, with 3 to 5 (occasionally up to 7) rounded 'teeth' or lobes at the ends." I believe the second comma is not needed (between the length and width measurements). Should the word "and" or "or" precede "occasionally" inside the parentheses?
 * Agreed on the first point; the second is a judgment call. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Yeah, I'll pay those. Done/fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

*Description: "A. cuneatus is a multi-stemmed, lignotuberous shrub that rarely grows over 2 m in height, where A. stictus is single-stemmed and non-lignotuberous, and commonly reaches 5 m in height." I would suggest "whereas" instead of "where" after the second comma; and the last comma is, I think, unneeded.
 * Since the second half of the sentence is being contrasted with the first half, "whereas" or "while" would be good. I can't agree on removing the last comma; that would make the series non-parallel.  (Parallel would be: X is Y and is Z and commonly reaches ...)  I'd go with "... while A. stictus is single-stemmed,  non-lignotuberous, and commonly 5 m or more in height."  (And you're right, many would use a "convert" template on that.) - Dank (push to talk)
 * Rejigged it - agreed on the whereas. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

*Taxonomy: in the first sentence, the comma after "December 1792" is probably not needed; the same applies to the comma after "Western Australia" in the next sentence, and after "16 December" and "two days earlier" in the next.
 * removed four commas. Yes I think we got a bit overzealous there... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Taxonomy: in my opinion, "It would be thirteen years before Labillardière would publish a formal description of A. cuneatus" would be more straightforward as "It was thirteen years before Labillardière published a formal description of A. cuneatus". It would also be more consistent with the previous paragraph.
 * "It was thirteen years" isn't wrong, but "It would be thirteen years" is more common and perfectly okay. It's the future-in-past tense, used to signal that the writer is discussing an event that's in the future relative to the narrative in order to clarify some point before the writer returns to pick up the narrative where it left off.  And that's just how it's used here.  It's true that some readers find it a little strained or old-fashioned, but the last time I brought it up at WT:MOS, consensus was that it's fine in Wikipedia.  At MILHIST's A-class review, we used to have a problem of writers using it much too often. - Dank (push to talk)
 * Not fussed either way here. I changed it but I must say I very slightly prefer "It would be..." for a more engaging narrative flow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My original suggestion changed "would" to "was" and also changed "would publish" to "published". Right now it reads, "It was thirteen years before Labillardière would publish ...".  It seems to me that either both changes should be made, or neither.  I wasn't suggesting that the original wording was wrong; it was just that the first paragraph was written entirely in past tense, and then the first sentence of the second paragraph switched tenses in a way that seemed to break the flow a bit, though I see what Dank means.  However, I don't wish to belabor the issue; I can see both sides. Omnedon (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

*Taxonomy: in the last paragraph, the comma following "He chose the specific name cuneata" is not needed.
 * removed comma Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

*Synonymy: "giving them different descriptions, but designating the same type specimen for both" also probably doesn't need the comma; and the same might apply in the next sentence.
 * Yeah, there is a case for and against a comma in both. I took out the first and left the second (mainly as I needed to sit a reference there). Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

*Synonymy: I see "As no type specimen was given, and no specimen annotated by Knight could be found, this was treated as a nomenclatural synonym of A. cuneata, therefore rejected on the principle of priority." Should "and was" precede "therefore" (without the comma)?
 * yes, done that one x 2 Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

*Infrageneric placement: I wasn't immediately familiar with the term "infrageneric". I looked it up, but could this be described or defined briefly without making the reading too heavy? Also, in the second paragraph, the comma after 1975 is unneeded.
 * I am thinking the best thing would be to make a wiktionary definition and link that way - will get onto this soon - I have not edited wiktionary to date so need to familiarise myself a bit with it I made a link for infrageneric. I removed the comma. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

*Common names: a comma is missing after "Esperance".
 * comma added Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

*Ecology: in the second paragraph, a comma is missing after "following a wave of P. cinnamomi infestation".
 * comma added Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I feel these are all relatively minor issues, and that on the whole this is an excellent article. Omnedon (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Omnedon, you asked for feedback; welcome to FAC. Caveat: this article isn't American English, and I find that sometimes my AmEng instincts work with these articles and sometimes they don't. In the places where I would have given different feedback to the writer here at FAC, I said so; otherwise I'm completely agreed with your comments, and well done.
 * One piece of advice: writers pick up some things faster than other things. Comma rules in particular are hard for some writers; even Chicago needs 37 sections to cover them if I remember correctly.  I generally ask my writers to get used to the rule that when a comma is used to "set off an element", as Chicago says unhelpfully, you need a second comma after the element unless you've reached the end of the sentence.  That's about as deep as we go into comma rules (and we're still working on that one :)  You may find, especially when an article is at FAC and the writers have a lot of other things to work on at the same time, that they appreciate it more if you just make the edit, inviting them to revert if they don't like it. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ''I concede we did go a bit crazy with commas here - and thanks to Omnedon for picking them out...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for working with me on this; I am by no means an experienced reviewer and am still learning how best to do it, and I appreciate the feedback from Dank and Mike Christie. The article looks very good to me. Omnedon (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A great way to clarify what's been addressed and what hasn't is to strike through like this the comments you are happy with as done. That allows us to figure out what you're happy with :) All good so far. I have been a little slow on this one due to RL being unexpectedly busy and juggling a few too many things on my wiki-plate :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. -- Pres N  22:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Support. Everything looking good, including the plant itself. Images also without problems that I see. Ucucha 04:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Support. An interesting and well-written article. Omnedon (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks :D Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is an image copyright check by Stifle.
 * Please provide evidence that the source map (not the colouring) of File:Adenanthos cuneatus map.png is freely licensed or confirmation that it was drawn by and is the exclusive work of a user.
 * Oppose pending resolution of the above. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ''I seem to recall us having this discussion on another FAC page - Hesperian got the data for the map from here, so created it (I guess) as a derivative work (?) I'll try to find the relevant page...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ''PS: have left a note for Hesperian - it is very late here and I need to get to sleep now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for, Stifle. According to the source information on the image page,
 * "It was created by Hesperian, using the IBRA 6.1 data (search for 'IBRA' at http://www.environment.gov.au/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp)"

I'm happy to confirm here: I made it. I downloaded the IBRA 6.1 data, loaded it into a GIS, made some trivially obvious presentation decisions (background colour, line colour, line thickness), and produced a raster png map, upon which I manually drew a distribution range in red.

The map itself is my own work, and the underlying data set, which belongs to someone else, is being used rather than reproduced here. Just as one may freely take information from a book, but may not copy verbatim the words used to express that information, equally one may use the spatial information embedded in a map or spatial data set, so long as one doesn't copy verbatim the stylistic elements used to express that information. A low-res raster, based on my own stylistic decisions, and from which the original data set cannot be accurately recovered, clearly meets that condition.

Hesperian 00:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. The previous discussion on this issue is at Featured article candidates/Banksia cuneata/archive1; you might like to have a quick review of that. Hesperian 00:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, that all appears to be in order. Image copyright check completed. Stifle (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * thanks. your thoroughness is a appreciated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Support with nitpicks from a non-scientist:
 * "The single red flowers are insignificant" - this doesn't make sense to me. Why are they insignificat? If they're truly insignificant, why are we mentioning them? Is there a scientific definition of "insignificant" that I'm missing?
 * Hmm, it's just that most proteaceae have larger more prominent inflorescences made up of lots of small flowers, where as these have only one measly flower. Actually by any standards, the flowers just aren't very imposing. They are described as such in sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Link heathland, dieback, petioles, habit, inflorescence?
 * all linked now Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Second paragraph of lead is slightly repetitive in phrasing, particularly the subsequent "in cultivation" phrase endings
 * tweaked second instance Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Chronology of the first paragraph of Discovery could be a bit clearer. Also, why is the shrub's name spelled out on second occurrence but abbreviated on first in this para?
 * Oversight. fixed now (abbreviations). Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Is that your translation of the Leschenault quote, or a published one?
 * not mine. I'll ask Hesperian where that came from. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My own translation, essentially a refinement of Google Translate output. That's why the citation is on the French original, and the English translation is uncited. This is acceptable per No original research. Hesperian 03:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "both putative parents co-occur" is a bit redundant
 * --> both putative parents are found. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "tolerates both sand and gravelly soils" - do you mean sandy? Also, "gravelly soils" seems to contradict the lead, which states that the plant requires sandy soils
 * sandy (and hence well-drained) soils are what it grows on in nature. A gravelly soil, with even coarser material will have even better drainage, will be fine too. A gravelly soil is actually pretty uncommon in a garden, so didn't think it was useful to put in lead. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Be consistent in retrieval date format and in whether you include retrieval dates to web versions of print-based sources
 * I think I got all the retrieval dates the same now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Year and publisher for Systema vegetabilium?
 * added Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Why is Nelson linked in ref 28 and not linked in ref 11?
 * sloppiness on my part. linked now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Compare publisher info for refs 9 and 29
 * added government to one, but they are different departments Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Why include the country name for a place as well-known as Melbourne and not for somewhere like Kenthurst or Carlton?
 * yeah, made them all state-based now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ref 39: "London" should not be italicized
 * That "London" is in hte name of the journal (not location as such), so I'm thinking it possibly should be (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * duplicate links removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.