Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aiphanes/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 Karanacs 23:28, 27 March 2010.

Aiphanes

 * Nominator(s): Guettarda (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria, and has been through a thorough review by Sasata for a GA. It also fills a niche - I don't believe that there are any plant genera or palms among the existing FAs. Note: this is a WikiCup submission. Guettarda (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - it shows up as having one dablink, to subterranean, although the link is to the primary meaning of the word, not any of the links. Since this is really just a dicdef, I could probably replace it with a wiktionary link. Advice would be appreciated. Guettarda (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a wiktionary link would be best I think. Alt text and external links fine (added alt text for one image that was missing it). Ucucha 16:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think, per WP:OVERLINK, you've got to expect most English-speakers to know what "subterranean" means; I'd remove it. Just looking at the lead, I see a few other offenders, such as fruit and seeds. I recommend you go through the entire article to remove similar plain English words and anything that isn't particularly relevant to the topic. Also look out for too many repeated links of the same term in a short space. Hope this helps! Steve  T • C 16:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, delinked fruit, seeds, subterranean. Guettarda (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Image Check: Passed: 6 images. All CC-by-SA or free-use, mostly self-photos. File:Aiphanes minima3.jpg is the only one not at Commons, so it should be moved there. Also link the author in that image explicitly in the summary, not just in the file history. -- Pres N  17:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Moved to Commons, using Magnus Manske's bot, which preserves the author attribution. Guettarda (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Support. I believe it meets all FA criteria. Ucucha 16:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "laid the basis for modern concept of the species." - don't you mean genus? Sentence is unclear.
 * Typo, meant genus. Guettarda (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (including A. horrida, pictured here) - picture next to this is actually A. minima and A. horrida is in the next section; this is probably confusing.
 * Believe that's an artefact from back when the only image was the one in the taxobox. Guettarda (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You have two paragraphs about Burrett with largely the same information; they are probably better off merged.
 * Done. Guettarda (talk) 15:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the paragraphs starting "In his 1932 revision of the genus" and "In 1932, after publishing a species in Martinezia" still largely duplicate each other. Also, the "next" in the "Over the next three decades" paragraph now doesn't make sense and the taxonomy section ends not with the current taxonomy, but somewhere halfway through the taxonomic history. I think the previous organization of the section was better, except that those two paragraphs said the same things. Ucucha 15:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Squirrels are also reported to consume the fruit" - any idea about the species? (No problem if the source doesn't say that.)
 * Source just says "squirrels". Guettarda (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ref. 2 needs to be formatted consistently with the others.
 * Missed that; removed. I don't think it's normal to add refs for authority in the taxobox; anyway, it's supported in the second para of the history section. Guettarda (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1c: Why are the following papers not cited?
 * Title: Topographic and spatial controls of palm species distributions in a montane rain forest, southern Ecuador
 * Author(s): Svenning JC, Harlev D, Sorensen M, et al.
 * Source: BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION  Volume: 18   Issue: 1   Pages: 219-228   Published: JAN 2009
 * Nothing terribly useful: "Aiphanes verrucosa, which is rare in the area, was observed once". Guettarda (talk) 06:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Title: A novel cyclooxygenase-inhibitory stilbenolignan from the seeds of Aiphanes aculeata
 * Author(s): Lee D, Cuendet M, Vigo JS, et al.
 * Source: ORGANIC LETTERS  Volume: 3   Issue: 14   Pages: 2169-2171   Published: JUL 12 2001
 * Probably doesn't add much to the later paper on the same topic you already have.
 * Yep, there were a few papers discussing this, I went with the one that I thought was most relevant. Guettarda (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Title: The effect of land-use on the local distribution of palm species in an Andean rain forest fragment in northwestern Ecuador
 * Author(s): Svenning JC
 * Source: BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION  Volume: 7   Issue: 12   Pages: 1529-1537   Published: DEC 1998
 * A. erinacea is threatened by deforestation. Is there anything else to tell about conservation status?
 * There are actually six species of Aiphanes that are vulnerable or endangered; never crossed my mind to discuss them, tunnel vision. Guettarda (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Added info on the six IUCN-listed species. Guettarda (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  And, done (with that one point, anyway). Guettarda (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Strike that, not done at all. Guettarda (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC) 
 * Would it be too much to give a bit of information on why these are threatened? Ucucha 22:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so here's the thing: yes, I can add a sentence explaining why they're threatened - habitat destruction, coupled with the fact that they are narrow endemics. The problem is how to reference it. I could add a statement like "Habitat destruction, coupled with limited geographic ranges, threatens many of these Colombian and Ecuadorian endemics." But how best to reference it? In each case, the statement is sourced separately, to the IUCN Red List page, so I don't have a single ref that supports this. I could add it to the start of the list of endangered species, but then the first ref following the statement is the Red List page for Aiphanes grandis. Would that be misleading? Guettarda (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be acceptable to say something like "According to the 2006 IUCN Red List, three species are endangered by habitat destruction—A. grandis[ref] ..." I think it should be apparent from such a sentence that the three cites collectively cover the sentence: the ref for A. grandis alone does not support the "three species" part either. Ucucha 04:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thing is that the same rationale is given for the three threatened species as well, and the phrasing is clumsy enough as it is. Guettarda (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to incorporate the information in a minimally clumsy way; what do you think? Ucucha 04:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. And now integrated some more info on conservation status that I had missed before. Guettarda (talk) 06:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Remains of Palms (Palmae) at Archaeological Sites in the New World: A Review
 * Author(s): Gaspar Morcote-Ríos and Rodrigo Bernal
 * Source: Botanical Review, Vol. 67, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 2001), pp. 309-350
 * Published by: Springer on behalf of New York Botanical Garden Press
 * Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4354394
 * Added, and rephrased the "Uses" section to fit it in. Guettarda (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reproductive Ecology of the Piassava Palm (Attalea funifera) of Bahia, Brazil
 * Author(s): Robert A. Voeks
 * Source: Journal of Tropical Ecology, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 121-136
 * Published by: Cambridge University Press
 * Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3068659
 * Attalea, not Aiphanes :) Guettarda (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that's my instance of tunnel vision :) Ucucha 04:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't say much - I can't keep Oryzomys, Oecomys and Pseudoryzomys clear. Guettarda (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that's my instance of tunnel vision :) Ucucha 04:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't say much - I can't keep Oryzomys, Oecomys and Pseudoryzomys clear. Guettarda (talk) 06:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Bochsenius and Bernal monograph appears to have some additional information, such as karyotype and pollen morphology. Why is that not covered here? Ucucha 03:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On the issue of chromosome numbers, there are only counts for 2 species, and the numbers don't agree. They're inclined to trust Read, who did both species and got consistent numbers of 15, and is the most recent work...from 1966. Most of the (rather short) section talks about chromosome numbers in related genera. I just couldn't find enough there to write anything meaningful. Guettarda (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's not much I see now. Perhaps add a sentence like "Published chromosome counts in Aiphanes range from 15 to 18." Good that you're not writing on Voanioala though. Ucucha 21:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or worse, there are ferns that are 1000 n...or was it 10,000 n. Guettarda (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure meiosis will be fun there. Ucucha 21:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, ended up going with a slightly longer version, in its own subsection. Guettarda (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the pollen - combination of trying to translate several pages of stuff like pollen grains of Aiphanes are monosulcate to meridionosulcate, rarely trichotomosulcate, globose to elliptic, rarely triangular, 20-30 pm along the polar axis, and 20-30 pm in diameter. The exine is semitectate to tectate, and often provided with supratectal processes including short or long spines, warts, or more or less fusing clavae. The diversity in exine structure may be summarized in the form of five main categories... into English, sans illustrations (they use more illustrations than words), and the thought that, if I don't care, does anyone else? But since you asked nicely, I'll give it a shot - maybe something like the German article does: Die Pollenkörner sind monosulcat, das heißt, sie haben nur eine Keimfurche. Diese liegt häufig in der Südhälfte des Pollenkorns (meridionosulcat). Selten finden sich dreiarmige Keimfurchen (trichotomosulcat). Sie sind kugelförmig bis ellipsoid, selten dreieckig. Die Längsachse ist zwischen 20 und 30 Mikrometer lang. Der Durchmesser variiert zwischen 20 und 30 Mikrometer. Die äußere Schicht der Pollenkörner (Exine) ist ganz oder zum Teil mit einem Tectum bedeckt, einer Schicht, die die Columellae genannten stäbchenförmigen Strukturen bedeckt. Auf dem Tectum sitzen häufig kurze oder lange Dornen, Warzen oder mehr oder weniger stark verwachsene zarte Auswüchse. Die Exinestruktur und Ornamentierung ist insgesamt sehr viel diverser als bei anderen Bactridinae-Gattungen.[1] Always a bad sign when German makes more sense to me than English :) Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hoping this article helps me make sense of the significance of all this. Guettarda (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The German makes a lot more sense to me too; the English sounds like the pollen grains can have any form they want and occasionally something else. Good luck making something readable out of it. Almost as bad as rice rat skulls, isn't it? :) Ucucha 21:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, crash course in pollen morphology completed. Guettarda (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Two small things: You need to be consistent in using or not using the serial comma and linking or not linking species for which there is no article. Ucucha 22:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On linking species - not sure if it's these or something I've missed, but...
 * Martinezia  redirects to Aiphanes, although perhaps it should be converted to an article that discusses the difference between Ruiz y Pavón's usage and Kunth's.
 * Marara, Tilima and Culmia redirect to Aiphanes
 * As obsolete subgenera of Aiphanes, Brachyanthera and Macroanthera should redirect to Aiphanes if they existed (unless alternative uses exist)
 * Synonyms like Martinezia caryotifolia are not linked to on their own, but the current accepted name is linked, and the association between the synonym and the current name are (I believe) explicit.
 * Among the pollinators I linked the term (common name or family name) at which the article currently resides. Guettarda (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty much good now. Ucucha 22:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Serial commas? Heck, there were random commas to be removed too. I think my remaining comma use is OK (in some cases there's a comma before an "and", but it's not a serial comma). Guettarda (talk) 07:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I got it. Ucucha 03:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Need to pay more attention while editing... Guettarda (talk) 03:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments by Sasata (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there anything useful that could be added from this?
 * Incorporated as part of a wider discussion on neotypification. Guettarda (talk) 22:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this - regeneration in Neotropical montane forests:
 * Title: Regeneration of palms in native forests and plantations at Otun - Quimbaya Fauna and Flora Sanctuary (Risaralda, Colombia).
 * Author(s): Correa-Gomez, D. F.; Vargas-Rios, O.
 * Source: Caldasia  Volume: 31   Issue: 2   Pages: 195-212   Published:  2009


 * According to their website the latest available issue is 30(1). Do you have access to 30(2)? Guettarda (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PDF here. Spanish with English abstract. Sasata (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Guettarda (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Similarly, the rarity of A. lindeniana and A. simplex in Colombian forests may be linked to limited seed production and the limited effectiveness of avian and mammalian frugivores." Unclear, does this mean limited effectiveness of seed dispersal by avian and mammalian frugivores? Sasata (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so: "poca efectividad dispersora de los animales consumidores, que incluyen mamíferos y aves" - either that, or the palms are eating mammals and birds :) Guettarda (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * study on distribution of palms, including A. erinacea, in tropical montane rain forest in Ecuador
 * Title: Environmental heterogeneity, recruitment limitation and the mesoscale distribution of palms in a tropical montane rain forest (Maquipucuna, Ecuador)
 * Author(s): Svenning, JC
 * Source: JOURNAL OF TROPICAL ECOLOGY  Volume: 17   Pages: 97-113   Published:  2001


 * Done. Guettarda (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the value in adding imperial converts for micrometres... does 0.00079 of an inch mean anything to anyone?
 * I agree. Removed. Guettarda (talk) 07:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "They are typically monosulcate, meridionosulcate or more rarely trichotomosulcate." in the absence of bluelinks, please help us understand what these words mean
 * The next three sentences attempt to do this-"The sulcus is a furrow which runs along the surface of the pollen grain and is usually the site at which pollination occurs. Monosulcate pollen has a single furrow that runs along the pole of the pollen grain. Meridionosulcate pollen have a furrow that runs along the equator of the pollen grain.[9]  Trichotomosulcate pollen, on the other hand, has three furrows." - Guettarda (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Obviously, I need more coffee... Sasata (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Support As the GA reviewer, I think the article has now been enhanced and polished so as to meet all FA criteria. BTW, have you checked out the German version, which is also FA? Sasata (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Comments - beginning a read-through now. I'll jot some notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Any extra info on how widely cultivated the species are? Worldwide? locally?


 * Still looking. Anecdotes rather than data (the Palm and Cycad Society of Australia has pix, presumably from members, but that's hard to translate into an encyclopaedic statement). Still looking. Guettarda (talk) 05:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

To sum up, I guess we've got what we've got - if further information arises on cultivation all the better. I read through again - I feel the article straddles the line between precision and accessibility rather well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Independent copy-edit would be good. It's not in too bad a state, but someone unfamiliar with the text needs to go through. I don't mind that it's pretty technical, but a few opportunities to bring in the non-experts are missed.
 * I did a (obviously non-independent) ce of the article. Guettarda (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Pinnately" is very unfamiliar, and we shouldn't have to divert to the link-target to find out its meaning. "... leaves (arranged feather-like in pairs on opposite sides of the stem)". Then your non-experts are happier, yes? The link is essential first time, but let's drop the links after that?
 * OK, explanation added to lead, other instance delinked. Guettarda (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "The genus appears mostly pollinated by insects, although records of pollinators are limited."—"to be" is missing. Reverse the order of the clauses?
 * Done. Guettarda (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "have been eaten by indigenous peoples of America"—the map shows only South and Central America.
 * Yeah. Probably meant to be "the Americas"; changed it to that. Guettarda (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * the spiny understorey?
 * Not sure what you mean. Guettarda (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * pointed out that "[i]ronically, species of ... — I'm pretty sure MoS says not to bother with the square brackets; just go ahead and change the case of the letter to work it into the sentence.
 * OK, fixed. Guettarda (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "sub-canopy" linked on third appearance; better just the first. Why is it hyphenated once?
 * Fixed. Guettarda (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Endangered"—is the link necessary? If any link, please explore the possibility of a section-link or a link to a more specific article.
 * Think it is, actually, since it refers to a specific meaning (the IUCN def) rather than general usage. Linked to appropriate section. Guettarda (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Understorey" is linked twice in "Description".
 * Fixed. Guettarda (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "to over 25 centimetres (9.8 in) long"—personal pref. only: "more than". It matches the previous bit, too.
 * Agreed. Fixed. Guettarda (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The image in "Spines" could be a little bigger. The image in "Habitat and ecology" I took to be of a snake's head at first; please enlarge to, say, 240 or 250px.
 * I thought we were not supposed to force image sized, but checking the MOS, looks like I was either out of date, or just plain wrong. Done. Guettarda (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A few more link repetitions ... "ornamental" twice? Better not to dilute your many high-value links.
 * Fixed that and others. Still looking for more. I have retained links for some duplicate terms - specifically, species names, Willdenow's name, Burret's name - that are linked in the lead and also in the "Taxonomy" section. Even on my screen, that section is well down the page, and these are unfamiliar enough that even if you encounter them in the lead, chances are you won't recall that when you're several pages down the screen. Less unfamiliar words, and repetition within a page or so of each other, I have delinked. Guettarda (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well done: this shows sophisticated scientific knowledge and has resulted from a great deal of work, no doubt; however, it needs a bit of fixing and, overall, is drier than it needs to be. Tony  (talk)  11:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the review. Guettarda (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Support and two nitpicks Nice article, but "species" is overworked in para 1; could be replaced by palm/plant/tree in places. Also, the position of the red fruit image is dreadful, cutting across a major section heading  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  11:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for the review. Reworked the lead to not say "species" quite so often. Will look at it some more as I continue to try to reword/rework the section. Moved the image down - it was nice to have the fruit pic in the section about fruit; the cross-section image bothered me, but I suppose I had kinda gotten used to it. Guettarda (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.