Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia aquilonia/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 Ian Rose 08:25, 15 December 2012 [1].
Banksia aquilonia[edit]
Banksia aquilonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I hate leaving things unfinished. I promis this will be the last banksia FAC for a few months. I halted because there wasn't much written on this one, but I've managed to get everything I can find and meld it into a concise attractive article....and raced off to the botanic gardens and take some snaps this arvo to stick in the article. Short and easy and I'll answer pronto. Have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose from Maralia - Only one quibble: "Propagation is generally by seed, with plants flowering four to six years of age." seems to be missing a word. Otherwise looks great. Maralia (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
*"Alex George described the plant in his 1981 monograph of the genus Banksia as a variety of Banksia integrifolia, but later reclassified as a separate species." - Is that George who reclassified it or was it reclassified separately by another means? Also is there a missing "it" or any other descriptive word missing between "reclassified" and "as"?
A very interesting little article. -- CassiantoTalk 11:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see another. A few quick thoughts-
- "Furry at first, they become smooth with age and open when ripe,[2] the two half-oval valves splitting to release the one or two seeds contained therein.[4]" Odd construction
- "distinctive enough for it to be considered a species distinct" Repetition
- I'm assuming the variants are not recognised as distinct taxa?
- "no intermediate plants between B. aquilonia and B. integrifolia." This is odd, as the name "B. aquilonia" presumably did not exist at this time?
- "case has since been held up as an interesting case" Repetition
- "Banksia aquilonia grouped in a clade with B. plagiocarpa, B. oblongifolia and B. robur" That is an odd use of the verb "group"; I think it says what is (I assume) intended, but perhaps consider rephrasing?
Other than those little points, it's looking good. I made some tiny tweaks. J Milburn (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. J Milburn (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
Commentsfrom Jim Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the inflorescences... as in all B. integrifolia subspecies — I wasn't sure until I reached the end of the long sentence which species was being described.
- Being too economical with prose...clarified Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- hence location is helpful in assisting identification — not sure you need "helpful" and "assisting"
- Despite initially assigning it varietal level of B. integrifolia, — is there a verb missing?
- Found from near sea level to an altitude of 1000 m (3500 ft), it grows in a variety of habitats and aspects.[3] Found in wet sclerophyll forest or rainforest margins,[5] it can be found
Image check - all OK (own work, map contains source info). GermanJoe (talk) 13:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments...minor issues:
- Saw a little excessive use of the word "promote"...so changed a couple of those to "elevate"...maybe another word may be better.
- The range map indicates this is not widespread naturally...but apparently the species isn't in danger as I read it is easily cultivated. How about the ecozone the species is in? Not a deal breaker, but a short statement discussing these issues wouldn't hurt.
- I added the conversion templates after I saw a couple missing non-breaking space issues, but it may be better to round the imperial units in the conversion.
- I prefer image captions to be full sentences, though this is just a personal thing, so no big deal. Believe MOS recommends a period at end of full sentences in captions and caps at beginning of any thumbnail caption.
- See, I find if I convert to full sentences, it often makes the caption wordier than I'd like. It certainly is an easier option because we then debate whether the first word of a non-sentence caption is capitalised or not (I'd say not but others generally do) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a fan of redlinks in FAs...I'd delink from Mount Finnigan National Park unless someone wants to stub it out..MONGO 16:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redlinks in FAs are fine. Better to have a redlink than it be unlinked, if it's a topic worthy of an article... J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaah found it. It was enlarged and renamed as Cedar Bay National Park. The Queensland government was adept at creating hundreds of tiny national parks rather than larger joined-up ones, and criticised by environmentalists previously. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redlinks in FAs are fine. Better to have a redlink than it be unlinked, if it's a topic worthy of an article... J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support...my minor quibbles seemed to have been addressed.MONGO 16:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.