Talk:Fothergilla malloryi

A fact from Fothergilla malloryi appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 April 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the extinct witchalder Fothergilla malloryi (pictured) is the oldest confirmed member of the genus Fothergilla?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2012/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fothergilla malloryi.

Wikipedia

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington.

Two matters[edit]

...the first is practical. The second is about style, and is perhaps pedantic.

This article needs a modern date or two to put the fossil in context. When was the specimen discovered? When was it described/named?
I have changed the word "sports" to "has". It is a boring, repetitive word, lacking in excitement. However, it is precise. I campaign against the inappropriate use of words such as "sports" and "features" which are journalise.

The word "sports" applies to something that is being "shown off" or carried with bravado by the person who wears it. A leopard doesn't "sport" his patterned coat.

Correct use: Jack came home from college sporting a bushy moustache and a black eye.

Likewise, "feature" when used as a verb is equally misplaced unless it relates to film. The specimen features indented edges is out. A feature of this specimen is the indented form of its edges is correct, but only if the form is sufficiently distinctive to be a "feature", not merely a characteristic.

Amandajm (talk) 01:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to point one, the second paragraph of the history and classification section addresses that with the sentence about the species being described in 2005.
I altered the word "had" to "has" (you didn't use has) and accept the change. In regards to features, the use of the word in botany and paleobotany is specific to traits, characters, etc. as thus the usage here is inline with the type description.--Kev min § 04:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale reversions without edit summaries[edit]

It's not the oldest confirmed member of the genus; we (Wikipedia) don't use honorifics in identifying people by name "Dr. V. Standish Mallory" should be "V. Standish Mallory" and wikilinked; and the source does Not say "source rock"; include edits summaries; discuss on talk page. 68.107.141.42 (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per Radtke, Pigg, & Wehr it is the oldest confirmed member of the genus, or at least was at the time of the species description. Do you have a reference that indicates this is no longer the case, as I was not able to locate one when writing the article.--Kev min § 06:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no indication that V.S. Mallory would meet WP:Bio notability requirements, the name should not be wikilinked. Also Radtke does not list his position, so a source is needed for that addition.--Kev min § 06:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has a festschrift written to him, and a fossil plant has his name as his specific epithet; and he's a world famous paleontologist of huge stature. Shall we delete every word you failed to reference? You could have looked him up. 68.107.141.42 (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

V. Standish Mallory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.141.42 (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Contributions to the paleontology and geology of the West Coast: in honor of V. Standish Mallory volume or the naming of a species after him impart notability according to wp notability standards.--Kev min § 06:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'm not going to argue the notability of V. Standish Mallory with you. Maybe you can convince Britannica that they made a mistake, though. 68.107.141.42 (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I havent said Kathleen or Britannica made a mistake, Im saying wiki guidelines are strict on this.--Kev min § 06:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mallory meets notability for Wikipedia. Interesting that you keep insisting he doesn't. From this and the article it seems that notability of scientists is well outside of your area of expertise. 68.107.141.42 (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reread Radtke and agree with the removal of "host rock" from the article.--Kev min § 06:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]