Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Symphyotrichum species/archive1


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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC).

List of Symphyotrichum species

 * Nominator(s): Eewilson (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Symphyotrichum is a genus of 96 asters native to the Americas common both as wildflowers and garden plants natively and in other parts of the world. I have been working on this upgrade in order to nominate for FLC since August. It now includes distribution maps, habitats, basionyms, varieties, and original years described. Images have been located for all but a few of the species. Named hybrids and their distributions have been added. The Lead has been expanded, and cladograms for the subtribe and the species within the genus have been created and added. There are NatureServe status categories for 75 of the species, and a NatureServe key was created for this expansion. IUCN categories were not used because only nine of the species are in IUCN, with only two of conservation concern that are covered by the NS statuses. The lists are separated by infragenera using the most recently published circumscriptions by Guy L. Nesom and John C. Semple, primary experts for this genus. Each list is sortable unless it is monotypic. There is a sortable list of infrageneric type species in the Classification section. Eewilson (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

 * Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You already have column scopes for the table headers, so you're just missing row scopes. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g.  becomes.
 * I did not know this! Done. Eewilson (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. On an unrelated note, since I'm the main person doing "animal" species lists like these- if you plan on doing more of these and would like to use templates instead of wikitable code (like Species table / Species table/row) let me know- I made a genus version (Plant genera table / Plant genera table/row) once for someone's draft, but I never made a species version as I didn't know what features would be useful. Your tables here are more straightforward than mine, so it may not be useful to templatize them, but just let me know. -- Pres N  13:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When I began the table upgrade, I reviewed the closest FL formats (all animals), and saw the templates. I think it would be good to look into templatizing plant tables, particularly since we may want more of these species by genera plant lists. We can discuss it on another talk page if you are interested. I'd be glad to give my input. A plant genera version could be of use as well (genera by family, for example). Eewilson (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

 * Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
 * :) Eewilson (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm a little surprised this hasn't gotten a review yet; it might be because many regular FLC reviewers just aren't familiar with the language and style of botanical pages on Wikipedia. I can say this much: the terms all make sense to me, and this appears to be a very solid and complete plant list. But it's not my place to be making judgment calls about what plant lists ought to include. It may be that after a couple of your lists have passed FLC, the regulars will be more comfortable jumping in here ... we'll see.
 * I was a little bit fiddly with my prose edits. There are probably reviewers who will say that some of those edits weren't warranted, and some who would say I should have done more. I tried to generally split the difference, mainly just chopping up a few sentences. As always with my copyediting, feel free to revert or discuss as you see fit. Where I said "one is native in eastern Eurasia", you might prefer something like "its range extends into Eurasia" ... that's more precise but maybe it's not necessary in the lead.
 * Looked good! Tweaked the Eurasia thing as you suggested. Eewilson (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * "(hybrids do not have their own articles)": not specifically disallowed by our WP:SELFREF guideline, but I've seen people mention that guideline when objecting to similar statements. I don't have a preference, but it's something to think about.
 * Well, I put that in the Legend not because I expect other articles to be referred to in their cases (I think that's what you mean), but because I had just said that there were links to the articles, but we don't do articles for hybrids, so there won't be links for those articles because they don't and won't exist. I'm really just talking about links vs. not links. The idea, too, although of lesser-importance, is to let others know that they don't need to introduce articles for the hybrids or even red links. Perhaps there is a better way, or perhaps that parenthetical expression isn't necessary in the Legend. Eewilson (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The cladogram "Species classifications" is hidden by default. I'm sure it's above my pay grade to make calls on the proper formatting of genus articles, and I know that MOS:DONTHIDE isn't followed to the letter in biology articles ... but the more we're hiding, the more likely it is that someone will invoke DONTHIDE. Not my call, but I'd be remiss if I didn't mention it.
 * PresN, since you regularly make calls on this issue in your lists and generally at FLC, I'd value your input on whether DONTHIDE applies here. - Dank (push to talk) 01:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I only hid it because it's SO BIG knowing that this would and should be brought up. Not sure what to do, but thoughts welcomed. Eewilson (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I generally disregard DONTHIDE in regards to the technical issues as long as it's not actual article body text being hidden, because it's either wrong or out of date. I just verified- both on the mobile site and on desktop with javascript disabled, the collapsed bits are not "invisible", they're instead displayed uncollapsed (and with no option to re-hide them). I don't know when that got fixed, but it's been years at least as far as I'm aware. The more relevant part of DONTHIDE is the editorial one- don't make readers have to click to see things that are essential parts of the article. (Don't think too hard about how the mobile site collapses all of the entire sections and requires a tap for each). In this case, I agree with hiding it- it's pretty big, (it seems bulkier on desktop than mobile, oddly) and for many/most readers is of less interest than the tables that it would otherwise force them to scroll past to get to. I had the same problem in my animal lists, and solved it by only having cladogram at the genus level, and not the species, but I think what you've done here is fine. -- Pres N  03:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I discovered within the last week that in the mobile app, you can go to settings and have it automatically expand everything. Apparently the default is to keep them collapsed because I don't remember ever setting it to be collapsed. Eewilson (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And by "everything", I mean tables, which includes all infoboxes, but not boxes (I think). Eewilson (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Good work on the table captions.
 * Thank you! Eewilson (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * There's no link pointing to this citation: Brouillet, L.; Labrecque, J. (1997).
 * And so there wasn't, and so it has been removed! Eewilson (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Checking the FLC criteria:
 * 1. The prose is fine. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
 * 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
 * 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
 * 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review).
 * 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
 * 4. It is navigable.
 * 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, a sampling of the images seemed fine.
 * Did you notice that I tried to use standard "Plants Taxon Box" green, which I think is #baf4ba? :) Eewilson (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I might adopt that. - Dank (push to talk) 03:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * 6. It is stable.
 * Support. This is a spectacular genus list; I wish they all looked like this. - Dank (push to talk) 01:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! Eewilson (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber
Looking now...


 * Many of its species are native from subarctic North America to Chile, Argentina, and the Falkland Islands... "native from"sounds weird to me. I know what you're trying to say here. Needs rewording somehow. "range from" "found in locales from..to"

Otherwise that is the only issue. Looks great WRT comprehensiveness and readability Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * How about this?


 * Native distributions of its species are widespread in the Americas, including as far north as subarctic North America to as far south as Chile, Argentina, and the Falkland Islands. One species has a native range extending into eastern Eurasia.
 * "Distributions" sounds funny...but "ranges" does not to mine ears...then "one species extends into eastern Eurasia" to avoid duplication. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , is it against Wikirules to say that you are funny? Okay, how about this? I'll keep making changes until it's right. P.S. Take a look at the main page for 5 January 2022, TFA. :) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, am satisfied with it now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cas! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude
My only comments are:
 * Half a dozen entries have no habitat info recorded. Is it not known?
 * I think that's true, yes, because I attempted to find everything for everything, but I'll check again. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , this will take me a day or so or so. Good catch, and I don't know how I missed it! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , I was able to complete habitat information for the non-hybrid species Symphyotrichum schaffneri. The five hybrids with missing habitat information are empty because there is no habitat information in their protologues nor in any later literature that I searched. They will have to stay empty. All good? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Notes a to d are not complete sentences so shouldn't have full stops
 * Okay, I'll fix. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Full stops removed from notes a through d. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'll comment back when these things are changed. :) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See my comments above. I think I've done everything I can with those hybrid habitats. Done? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review

 * Source review – High-quality reliable sources are used throughout the citation list, and the references appear reliable. The link-checker tool doesn't seem to like the Cal Berkeley links in terms of them working, but I tried a couple of them and they seem to be fine. It does turn up a false positive every once in a while, and this looks like one of those times. Overall, I'd say the source review is a pass. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, ! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Promoting. -- Pres N  19:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


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