Talk:Banksia violacea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Banksia violacea 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 trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 21, 2013.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 30, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
June 30, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Australia / Biota / Western Australia (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Banksia violacea is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (marked as Low-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other than editorial assistance.
WikiProject Banksia / Plants (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Banksia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the plant genus Banksia and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Plants (marked as Low-importance).
 

lignotuberous populations[edit]

Cas, I've removed your statement

Banksia violacea is mostly nonlignotuberous, though some plants with lignotubers have been found in the western part of its range.

from the description section, just while we figure out what the situation is. George 1981 refers to northern populations that "apparently do have them, though they have not been seen in post-fire situations". Lignotuberous plants continue to be mentioned in the 1984 and 1987 editions of The Banksia Book, and in the 1988 and 1991 editions of the Banksia Atlas. But the 1999 Flora of Australia states straight out that they are non-lignotuberous. My reading of this is that the claim that there are lignotuberous populations was shown to be false in the 1990s. Have you any other information?

I put a brief coverage of this in the ecology section, which you mustn't have noticed.

Hesperian 02:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Certainly that could be the case, although I wouldn't be surprised if a question mark over lignotuberous ones simply disappeared off the radar. I know, let's ask Alex :) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 06:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
PS: Species including both lig and nonlig - B. marginata, B. ashbyi were the two you were thinking of? If one doesn't count B. cunninghamii as a separate species then that's another one. also B. paludosa....can't think of any more....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 06:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
George 81 and/or 87 (can't remember exactly at the moment) said only marginata and violacea (if it is counted). Let's face it; these are great references but they are getting old. I'm not surprised to hear that ashbyi and paludosa have been added to the list.
...
Ah, you're right. I've just had a dig through Lamont and Markey's "Biogeography of fire-killed and resprouting Banksia species in South-western Australia", and it has a pretty detailed discussion of how ashbyi and violacea have lignotuberous and non-lignotuberous variants. That will teach me to give too much weight to the absence of information.
Hesperian 06:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

image of woody cone?[edit]

Wanna pic of a cone? I an upload one later. Remind me on my talk page if you don't see one in a few days cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 03:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes please. Hesperian 03:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
young follicles - B. violacea

- taken at the same place as the last one. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 11:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

older follicles - B. violacea
ex.cellent. Hesperian 11:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I've stuck them in. They're not in particularly sensible locations, but at least they are spread around and give the article a bit of colour. Hesperian 11:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping on the violacea bandwagon with me; nice to have some company. Hesperian 12:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

FAC commentary[edit]

To avoid clogging up the FAC page, here are some detailed comments:

Lead
  • Infobox: what does "unranked" mean? This is just my own curiosity
See para 4 of Angiosperms#History_of_classification - bit of a headache currently. We really wouldn't noramlly use unranked clades but Angiosperm is like, really notable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "is generally encountered as a..." why not "is generally a..."
  • Link inflorescences in the second sentence?
  • According to Western Australia, "Western Australian" → "West Australian"
    • Interesting. I wasn't aware of that. Changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Throughout the article, should "Charles Gardner" be "Charles Austin Gardner" to match our article?
    • He was almost always called Charles Gardner, so have used that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "it is rarely seen in cultivation" → "it is rarely cultivated". Simpler, IMO.
Description
  • "with narrow leaves which are 1–2 cm (0.4–0.8 in) long"
  • "about 1.5 millimetres wide" shouldn't there be a conversion, and millimetres abbreviated for consistency?
  • The shortness of the sentence beginning "New growth occurs" makes for choppy reading; I think it can be merged with the next sentence
  • You use "occur" in three consecutive sentences: "growth occurs", "flowering occurs", "flowers occur"

More to come later. Mm40 (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure what is meant by "fruiting structure". Is it the entire plant while the process of fruiting is taking place, or is it a structure within the plant? Assuming it's the latter, a suitable link might be useful in helping readers.
It means the follicle essentially - linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "When young, they are greenish..." is this referring to B. violacea in general or to the follicles?
the follicles. clarified Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "separator is the same dimensions" I tend to think of dimensions as a possession, not a characteristic, so "separator has the same dimensions" or "separator is the same size". Just me being picky, though
No, no, I agree with that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't like the "and also" structure in the sentence beginning "The seedling leaves are crowded..." See if you can reword.
done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Taxonomy
  • I think you can remove the comma before "in the vicinity"
Removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "How to Know Western Australian Wildflowers" is apparently "How to know Western Australian wildflowers" (note capitalization) according to our article. This also needs to be fixed in the references
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The repetition here can probably be alleviated: "taxa with very long and slender styles, and with smoothly convex perianth limbs without a costal ridge and with thickened margins"
yes. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • "to his 1981 broader definition" might sound better with "to his broader 1981 definition"
yes. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Distribution and habitat
  • The year of the Conservation Act (or years the species has been assessed) would be a welcome piece of information
added date of act. Thes taxa are montiored continuously, and I am thinking would only get a date as such if classed as "threatened" etc., not in the negative. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Ecology
  • "the phosphorus-deficient native soils of Australia"
removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Cultivation
  • "and probably does not flower" why "probably"? I suggest "usually" or "generally", or perhaps "probably does not"
"'generally Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not fond with a sentence starting "However"
twaeked Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
References
  • Refs 5 and 13 should have retrieval dates
got 'em Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Mast is linked in ref 11 but not in other references he is given as the author
got 'em Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Ref 14 should have a question mark following the title
got it Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
General
  • Because I can't find anything on evolutionary history in the main Banksia article, I would expect there to be something here (e.g., what evolutionary advantage did their features give them, what type of speciation separated them from their Banksia colleagues, etc.)
Tricky for this species without veering into OR. There is nothing specific to add apart from being in a hotspot for biodiversity of banksia. I will look up some material to see what i can add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The External links section is empty
aha, I had been turning them into inline references asI was using them. Removed empty section heading Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Mostly just minor prose fixes, but the article would surely be considered comprehensive if more on evolution is added. But if nothing out there is written on it, however unfortunate that may be, we'll have to make do. Otherwise, very nice. Mm40 (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banksia violacea. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)