Talk:Aquilegia sibirica/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Pbritti (talk · contribs) 18:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Yakikaki (talk · contribs) 21:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did the DYK review of this article, but I'm happy to take on this review as well. I'll get back in the coming days with my first comments. Regards, Yakikaki (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I had to make some basic corrections to bring parts of the article into compliance with the guidance at WP:Wikiproject Plants. In particular, species names are italicized wherever they appear, including within references. Also, Wikiproject Plants requires the use of Plants of the World Online for all flowering plants, including determining if the taxon is accepted, its synonyms, and its distribution. Abductive (reasoning) 11:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment, a glance at the 80 articles on plants considered to have met GA seems (to me at least) to demonstrate the difficultly of raising a plant article to GA. There are about 400,000 accepted plant taxa (and only 124,475 WP:PLANTS articles currently in existence), meaning that so far only 1 in 5000 is a GA. This article is currently quite short compared to the existing plant GAs, and lacks many of the sections mentioned at WP:WikiProject Plants/Template. Abductive (reasoning) 11:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive:, would you like to make the review instead? Or were you just providing some comments? I was planning on starting the review in earnest later this weekend. Yakikaki (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given these comments, Yakikaki, I would encourage you to continue the review. However, I am currently bring the article into compliance with these WikiProject standards (which are distinct from the standards for a GA). ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm also happy to look over the article again Yakikaki, since I've got experience with plant GAs. After you complete the review I can just do a quick sweep to check on any of the weird quirks that plant articles sometimes require. I also encourage continuing to add any information you guys come across as well! Fritzmann (message me) 17:42, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fritzmann: thanks, that would be very appreciated as I have very little expertise in botany. I'll start by making a general review, I hope to be able to come back later today or tomorrow. @Pbritti: do what you need to do, I'll start looking at it as soon as I can though, and we can sort it out as we go. Best, Yakikaki (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great all around. I'm actually extremely excited that four editors are invested in improving a single plant article. This was a spur-of-the-moment article I made after visiting a botanical garden last year and now it's grown into something I'm actually somewhat proud of (regardless of whether it passes GA). Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First observations[edit]

First of all, thanks for taking the effort to write this article. It is already an enjoyable read about a very beautiful and interesting plant! Here are my more formal remarks for the review:

The article is indeed quite short, and it seems to me it could be developed further content-wise. Three examples: The plant has been considered a medicinal herb in Mongolia. In "Antifungal activity of Mongolian medicinal plant extracts" we learn that "Aquilegia sibirica L. [sic] is considered a major therapeutic drug of Oriental Medicine, where the plant is usedin female diseases, bronchial asthma, rheumatism and cardiovascular diseases andmoreover it inhibitedS. aureus (Gonchig et al.2008)" So it seems you could elaborate on how and against what it has been used as a traditional medicine? Similarly, at least I find it picturesque that the specimen introduced to the US in 1933 were gifts from the Botanical Garden in Leningrad. (I at least would not have expected that botanists in the USSR remained in cordial contact with their US counterparts even during the height of Stalin terror.) A simple line about this could expand the article a bit and add to its interest for the general reader. Lastly: In common with other Aquilegia species, the Siberian columbine possesses nectar spurs. Crosses between Aquilegia sibirica and Aquilegia ecalcarata–the only Aquilegia species that lacks spurred pedals–have been studied to identify the gene responsible for spurred pedals As a reader I want to know more about this research, what was the result? So I would encourage a general closer scourging of sources and try to build the article even further. I think it is possible. You have a fair number of reliable sources quoted, but there may be more useful stuff out there. While there is no strict criterion for the article to be of a certain length it is true that it is short, compared to other GA articles on plants. Consider if you can expand the three sections which right now make up the article. The physical description of the plants is for example quite brief. Perhaps there is nothing much more to add, but take another look and see if you can't elaborate a bit more on it. Other sections (or info), like on conservation status, cultivation (is it cultivated? The Finns seem to suggest it could be cultivated, but plantlust dot com (what a name!) seem to have put theory into practice, already.) or etymology is lacking altogether. So to sum up, I would encourage you to try to grow (pun intended) the article a bit more; a bit more flowery (pun intended) language could help you a bit on the way there, as well.
The main image in the infobox is fine, though I miss the original botanical illustration (precisely because it is a botanical illustration and thus a "compromise of accuracy and idealized images from several specimens") and would have liked to see both of them in the article. The black and white picture is one of the most unclear photographs I have seen in my life. I think it confuses more than it helps.
There is no External links section. I would at least expect links to Commons and Wikispecies.
While it is not prohibited to have inline citations in the lead, the gist of the MOS in this regard is that they could be expected to be included there if it contains content likely to be challenged. It is not the case here, so I would suggest you to keep the lead clean of inline citations (though I won't be dogmatic about it).
Un-wikilink Mongolia and Kazakhstan; we usually don't wikilink countries.
Wikilink to 12th edition of Systema Naturae instead, and add "by Linnaeus" for a minimum of context.
If you look at the notes section of Symphyotrichum kentuckiense, you'll find some neat ways of including definitions (with little illustrations!) of plant shapes which I would suggest you try using here as well.
Put all measurements in convert templates, so that both imperial and metric measurements are given.
Aquilegia sibirica is native to the north-central Asian regions of Siberia, northern Mongolia, Kazakhstan, and Xinjiang. Evidence for a continuous Euro-Siberian vegetation is found in the distribution of the Siberian columbine considered alongside that of the Aquilegia vulgaris. The population in Middle Siberia is considered a quaternary relict (a population that once possessed a broader range in an earlier geologic epoch). What does "Evidence for a continuous Euro-Siberian vegetation" mean? Is it another way of describing its range? Because if so, it contradicts the first and last sentence. And is the population in Middle Siberia a separate population from the populations found elsewhere in Siberia, northern Mongolia, Kazakhstan, and Xinjiang? I think this sentence could benefit from more clarity and some elaboration.
I've been trying to find something to complain about regarding the prose but it is well written. I guess you are a native English speaker?

OK, those are my comments for now. A bit of a mixed bag, obviously, with some low hanging fruit (by the way, there is no description of the Siberica's fruit!) and some that may take more effort. Let me know if you have any comments/questions/concerns about this and we can see how we can solve it. Best regards, Yakikaki (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the in-depth comments! I can see light at the end of the tunnel on this but will need to adequately address all of the issues raised with a bit more research and recalibration. Unfortunately, that means I won't be able to begin to engage with this to the degree desired until the end of Wednesday UTC. I signed on to review another GAN and I owe it to the nominator to complete that review first before proceeding here. Your patience is deeply appreciated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time, Pbritti. I know it seems like a lot of work but once you sit down and dig into it, I'm sure it will go quickly and smoothly. You have several dedicated editors who can help out. And the GA is definitively within reach. I'm going to be away myself Wednesday-Sunday. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, no rush on you getting back to this. I'll be available pretty consistently through next week and intend to avoid taking on any additional reviews until completing this one. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick update: I'll be working through these comments late Sunday. Life got far more hectic than anticipated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]