Talk:Banksia ilicifolia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleBanksia ilicifolia is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 7, 2012.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 8, 2012Good article nomineeListed
July 1, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

leafed/leaved[edit]

Is it Holly-leafed Banksia or Holly-leaved Banksia? — 85.211.181.251 17:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common names are rubbery. But the Australian Plant Common Names Database, Flora of Australia Online and FloraBase all refer to it as "Holly-leaved Banksia". Hesperian 23:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles to add[edit]

All looked at now, and either added or not (those had only very peripheral mention) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Banksia ilicifolia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, this looks great. More detailed comments to follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Appearing from late winter to early summer, the inflorescences are dome-shaped flower heads rather than spikes as many other banksias. They arise from stems that are around a year old, with no lateral branchlets growing on from the flower head base." This isn't as clear as it could be.
  • "The name Banksia aquifolium was published in 1814 and reduced to synonymy.[1]" It's not clear what that line is doing there, considering you discuss it in the next paragraph? It's also not clear where the name "Sirmuellera ilicifolia" fits in.
    • rejigging now. There was another publication of a name which I can't find now. Odd bit removed and sirmuellera added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because of its dome-shaped flower heads, the Holly-leaved Banksia is placed in the subgenus Banksia subg. Isostylis.[5] It is the only common member of that subgenus; the two other species are rare and threatened,[6] and are protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999." Would this information not belong in the subsection on the infrageneric placement?
  • There also seems to be a lot of crossover between the infrageneric placement subsection and the phylogeny subsection.
  • "(‘community type 22’)" ?
    • just the name given by the WA government to one of the communities - can't find anything else about it under that name Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seasonally inundated" With what?
  • "include M. preissiana," Shouldn't this be the common name for consistency?
  • "a beetle of the species Liparetrus," Genus?
  • The ecology section could probably do with a little more wikification- there are a few unlinked technical terms.
  • You don't explicitly mention in the cultivation section that it is not often used.
  • Check the formatting of notes 9, 17
  • What precisely is the document note 18 references?
    • whoops, left out the url - added now. cites previous two sentences. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On note 33, could we have all the authors?

I'm assuming that this will be going to FAC, so a few pieces that could be adjusted before it's nominated-

  • The lead feels a tad short.
  • "and variously obovate (egg-shaped), elliptic, truncate or undulate in shape, and 3–10 cm (1–4 in) long. The leaf edges are generally serrated with broad v- to u-shaped sinuses" A little technical
  • I feel that the article is missing a close-up picture of the leaves, which are clearly characteristic

Generally very strong. I made a few small edits. J Milburn (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • your edits are ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking again, I'm happy that this is ready for GA status. I do hope you push for FA- my notes above will hopefully be helpful there, and I do feel you should look again at the M. preissiana point above. However, these are niggles, and certainly will not stop this from being a strong GA. Good job! J Milburn (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • yeah, I'll work on the lead and the other points and get it to FAC soon - thanks for the review and pointers....:) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precision of units conversions[edit]

The first paragraph of the article contains the phrase -

It is generally a tree up to 10 metres (33 ft) tall ...

The "33 ft" is much more precise than the "10 metres". The 33 ft means 33 ft, not 32 ft and not 34 ft. The 10 meters, with only one significant digit shown, and taken in context, means something like 8-12 meters. These two phrases, "10 metres" and "33 ft", have different precision and hence different meaning.

This situation occurs all over the place, of course. Most (all?) books I've seen deal with this the lazy way, i.e., they give a precise conversion of an imprecise number.

Can we do better? Are there any guidelines about this issue?

Dr Smith (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree -what would you like me to round it to - 30 ft or 35 ft? I've often done to nearest 5 ft in these situations. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this instance, I like 35 ft better. I don't think it matters much. I was really asking if there was a general policy on this kind of thing. If not, should we try to come up with one? Dr Smith (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a guideline at MOS:CONVERSIONS.--Melburnian (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banksia ilicifolia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Banksia_ilicifolia&oldid=1216635241"