Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia menziesii/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 SandyGeorgia 03:11, 28 May 2010.

Banksia menziesii

 * Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Bombs awaaayyy, as usual this banksia has had the attention of all of us at wikiproject banksia in astop-start manner over the past four years. It had a very thorough going over at GAN and input from a few. I think it is of equivalent standard to the ten existing Banksia featured articles. Have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 10:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment—no dab links or dead external links. I think you could do with a little less bold in the lead. Ucucha 10:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. I removed two less common names from lead - they are still in the body of the text Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Has there been an image review yet? Karanacs (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not as far as I can tell but shouldn't be hard as gnangarra and I took most of the photos ourselves :). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * theres 2 by Cas, 1 by Hesperian, with the balance by me including the distribution map. no issues with any of them Gnangarra 01:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources look OK, no issues. Brianboulton (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC) Lead
 * Oppose until some things fixed.
 * "A distinctive banksia, it has had an uneventful taxonomic history" - if the lead is meant to summarise the most important info, then cut this out - it isn't important, and to a lay reader, "an uneventful taxonomic history" is just a mystifying remark.
 * good point. removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Description
 * "The anthocyanin pigments cyanidin-3-galactoside, cyanidin-3-glucoside and peonidin-3-glucoside have been detected in its flowers." Everything was going fine up to this, when we are bamboozled with information that is incomprehensible to a lay reader, lacks wikilinks to most of the terms, and the significance of which is not established. I suggest deleting this, unless someone can explain in language a lay person will understand, why it matters what pigments have been detected.
 *  let me think about this a bit. Will advise. I will double check with the original paper. If it proposes the pigments are responsible for the colours, then a statement along the lines of "the flower colours are due to anthocyanins might be okay I think. If the source does not do this, then I might remove. '' Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * update - changed to "Anthocyanin pigments are responsible for the red and pink shades in the flowers" - I feel this is notable and easy to understand (and supported by source).'' Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "separated by a woody separator" - is there a way to avoid this clunky word repetition?
 * tried something different Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Current placement
 * The taxonomy section seems generally pretty long and only just able to be followed by a lay reader, but the long table/list demonstrating its current placement under George's scheme seems completely unnecessary to a non-specialist.Just have the one genus, one subgenus, one section, one series, one species name. Ditch the rest.
 * I removed the non-hierarchical ones, but did think showing the most closely related species was informative (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, yes that retention seems sensible. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Ecology
 * This section begins with a weird factoid para that starts "A 1994 study by Byron Lamont..." The ecology section should begin with important info, not this.
 * good point - reorganised section for flow (flowering/pollination/pollinators etc.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Twenty-one species from several orders of myxomycetes" - the last term is wikilinked, but couldn't this be given a plainer english explanation, eg adding (slime molds) in brackets?
 * done Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Another order, the Physarales, was unusually rare—other studies have demonstrated that the order is typically abundant on the bark of various species around the world" not sure this is important enough to be included at all, but if it is, then please explain various species of what? Banksia? Tree? Plant?
 * different trees. I hope this is clear enough that they are other than banksias(?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * support Comment leaning to
 * One remaining thing. Can you re-examine the text under "Description" and "variation within the species" and think about one point? I would like the article to be clearer about whether the species has two distinct forms, or whether there is a a gradation in form according to climate etc. The description: "grows either as a gnarled tree to 10 m (35 ft), or a lower spreading 1–3 metre (4–10 ft) shrub. In the latter form,..." indicates the former - two forms of the plant. But then in "variation" we have this: "First, it varies in habit, growing as a tree for most of its distribution, but usually as a shrub at its northern limits in the vicinity of Eneabba-Mount Adams; thus, it declines in size as the climate becomes warmer and dryer further north". This makes it sound like a gradation. Then the sentence after that sounds like two forms. I think the language needs to be more unambiguous. The main problem is the first sentence under "variation". Maybe use a phrase in there somewhere like "...the tree and shrub forms can be found growing side by side...". hamiltonstone (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, upon looking at it, that section is much better integrated into the main description section as it reads funnily. I am not sure how the "graded" sentence got thus but have reworded and incorporated it. Essentially, it is saying that the trees gradually get smaller as one goes north, and when they get quite stubby, they are more often multistemmed shrubs, and that there is no sharp disctinction (this is what was meant by the graded bit but came across oddly) - incorporated and rejigged now Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments Just a few quibbles  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  06:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ...Menzies banksia, is a species of small tree or large shrub in the genus Banksia. It is a gnarled tree up to 10 m (35 ft) tall, or a lower spreading 1–3 m (4–10 ft) shrub in the more northern parts of its range... &mdash; bit repetitive, I’d remove the underlined.
 * changed to "of flowering plant" - just leaving it as "species" scanned funny Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In the latter form... &mdash; rather detached from item it refers back to, I’d put in the shrub form...
 * done Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ...with new leaves paler and finely downy. &mdash; ...leaves being paler...
 * ''tweaked to "The new leaves are paler and finely downy" Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ovoid to cylindrical in shape, the can &mdash; missing word?
 * strange, how'd that disappear? "flower spikes" reinserted Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ...pinks, plus chocolate..., &mdash; don’t use “plus” when you mean “and”, not a maths addition
 * fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The plant is dependent on fire to reproduce as the follicles open with fire, &mdash; bit repetitive follicles require great heat to open  or similar?
 * done Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hybrids &mdash; I can't see the point of a one para subsection that would be fine as the last para of the previous text
 * good point. removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Cultural references&mdash; I can't see why illustrations are cultural references, what about In art or similar
 * okay. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 *  Banksia menziesii was the subject of a book by botanical artist Philippa Nikulinsky, which showed the progress of an inflorescence from bud through flowering to fruiting and seed release over 22 watercolour plates.[48] It was one of several wildflowers depicted on a series of plates produced by the British pottery firm Wedgwood in the early 1990s.[48] Noted wildflower artist Ellis Rowan was another to paint it.[49] &mdash; I'd put the two illustrators together, rather than have the pottery between them. A bit unbalanced, we're told a lot about Philippa, and poor old Ellis just... painted it
 * flipped to align. Will look into it, but Philippa did a whole book vs one painting by Ellis...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support and additional comment Happy with responses, but recent edit mentions "sweet water ceremonies" &mdash; which are what?  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  14:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ceremonies where the beverages were drunk. Hard to elaborate as there is not too much more in the source quoted (which is online). I am musing on how I can rejig. Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * comment sorry Cas, this one bugged me about its Nyoongar use, personal experience I've had water sweetened by dipping the flower into it but hadnt come a cross a source I like besides Daisy Bates, any I just stumbled onto this source which also cites Bates and says the plants nyoongar name is mungyt. Personally have little faith in Bates as a source because much of her work was sensationalised to increase/ensure sales. Gnangarra 06:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good find! I was hoping some material like this would come up as I feel many bio articles published miss this sort of material. I am indebted and the mateiral added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Well done Cas its got my support, oh it has wonderful photographs :) Gnangarra 03:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support—the usual good work. Ucucha 16:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Comment—
 * "Sirmuellera menziesii" [sic]—does the sic refer to the absence of italicization?
 *  I think Hesperian added that, I'll ask him.  Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * fixed. was an accidental copy-paste. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "coincides with Perth's expanding metropolitan area and surrounds"—not sure what "surrounds" means here.
 * good pick up. that is redundant. As I was typing I was thinking of metropolitan as 'city' instead of 'city + suburbs' - removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Banksia menziesii is a facultative phreatophyte, and is able to grow in a wider variety of places within its native banksia woodland habitat around Perth;"—wider than what?
 * than Banksia ilicifolia and Banksia littoralis - I thought that was clear from linking up of the sentences with the semicolon. rejigged to make clear. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I noticed you (Cas) wrote in the GA review that "Menzies banksia" is not a commonly used common name. If so, why is it in the taxobox?
 * good point. replaced. firewood banksia is overwhelmingly most common name Casliber (talk · contribs)


 * Clifford93 ref is missing title.
 * Pistil Structure of Banksia menziesii R.Br. (Proteaceae) in Relation to Fertility - added (how'd I miss that....?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 09:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes http://www.superfloralretailing.com/pdf/CutFlower1007.pdf a reliable source?
 * The parent site indicates it is a periodical magazine. I figure it is on par with some newspaper material. Not a great source but I feel appropriate for some cut flower trade names. I wouldn't have used it for, say, ecology :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


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