|Maple has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|WikiProject Plants||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|Maple received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
- 1 Query distribution map
- 2 Image in the taxobox
- 3 Maple as a FA
- 4 US-centrism in the article
- 5 Morpholgy section unsourced and false!
- 6 Move to Acer?
- 7 Bark close-ups would be nice
- 8 Make disambiguation page?
- 9 Lead sentence
- 10 help please fast
- 11 Anyone know what specie is this?
- 12 Mushrooms?
- 13 Food section
- 14 Capitalization
- 15 File:Redmaple.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
- 16 Quarryhill Botanical Garden
- 17 B-Class criteria checklist
Query distribution map
Would any Canadian foresters or botanists - or just someone, like me, who hails from the north of the central provinces - care to comment on the map showing the distribution of maple trees? The map shows a much, much more extensive distribution in Canada than actually exists. Specifically, it shows maples for several hundred miles into "my neck of the woods" where there certainly aren't any. Maybe this has something to do with the way these types of maps are drawn, or references shrubs rather than trees (though I don't know of any of those either).alacarte (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Image in the taxobox
The image in the taxobox makes very poor presentation of what maple is. I suggest to replace this image with a different one showing maple leaves. I prefer the image given here.
(I like this picture better as well)
I noticed the following:
"Sugar maples typically have a lifespan of 30000 years."
This must be the longest living tree on Earth... should it be 300 years?
18.104.22.168 00:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)John
- I've changed to a similar (and much higher resolution) photo, also one showing the type species (the species by which the genus is defined) - MPF 11:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Maple as a FA
Some of my comments:
1."Maples are trees or shrubs in the genus Acer."
- Include family also, "in the genus Acer, in the Sapindaceae or soapberry family.
2."There are approximately 125 species, most of which are native to Asia, but several species also occur in Europe, northern Africa, and North America; for a list, see List of Acer species."
- "most of which are native to Asia, with several species native also to Europe, northern Africa, and North America." This couple probably be more precisely worded by maple expert.
- I don't like this in the lead paragraph, "for a list, see List of Acer species.
3."Maples are variously classified in a family of their own, the Aceraceae, or (together with the Hippocastanaceae) included in the family Sapindaceae."
- I might leave this for later, but you could put it as the second sentence, and I don't think "together with the Hippocastanaceae" should be paranthetical.
4."Modern classifications, including the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification, favour inclusion in Sapindaceae."
- "Modern" is relative, do Thorne, Cronquist, Takhtajan, and Reveal, who are also modern favour inclusion in the Sapindaceae. If so, some case must be made later on for why only the APG is mentioned.
5."The tree, most notabaly the leaf, gained popular use in the early symbols of Canada. Today, the maple leaf is featured on the Canadian flag and Canadian-related logos."
- This really doesn't seem to be lead paragraph material, the article is about the genus, not the leaf of one member of the genus as used as a symbol.
Contents [hide] 1 Morphology 2 Pests and diseases 3 Uses 3.1 Horticulture 3.2 Tourism 3.3 Commercial uses 3.4 Symbolism 4 References 5 External links
- Shouldn't the broad and general information about its ecology and distribution come before pests and diseases?
Morphology 1."Maples are mostly trees growing to 10-40 m (30-130 feet) in height."
- "usually trees"
2."Others are shrubs less than 10 m tall with a number of small trunks originating at ground level.
- "multiple small trunks"
3."Maples are distinguished by opposite leaf arrangement."
- "distinguished" from what?! Do you mean that this is a characteristic of maples?
4."The leaves in most species are palmately veined and lobed, with 3-9 veins each leading to a lobe, one of which is in the middle."
- Do you mean "3-9 primary veins each leading to a separate lobe" or "3-9 veins" total, it sounds like the latter.
5."A small number of species differ in having palmate compound, pinnate compound, pinnate veined or unlobed leaves."
- "palmately or pinnately compound leaves, pinnately veined leaves, or unlobed leaves."
These are some specific comments about the text so far, but I think you need more on the geographical distribution of the genus, the center for biodiversity, and the plant's ecology. Will try to post more as I have time. There are a couple of editors knowledgable about maples specifically who should be contacted for help. KP Botany 18:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks a lot. I went ahead and removed the symbolism part of the maple from the lead. I will add some of your suggestions this week and I will try and contact the guys you suggested and make this an FA. I was also thinking last night, in my sleep, that we could try to use a photo of trying to tap the maple tree for syrup. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
US-centrism in the article
The tourism section could do with a re-write: it focuses on North American autumn colour, mentioning other countries' traditions as an adjunct. ('Other regions have their own leaf-watching tradition as well' comes across as rather parochial/patronising). I suggest as a possible rewrite:
Many Acer species have bright autumn foliage, and many countries have leaf-watching traditions. In Japan, the custom of viewing the changing color of maples in the autumn is called "momijigari". Nikko and Kyoto are particularly favoured destinations for this activity.
The particularly spectacular fall colors of the Red Maple (A. rubrum) are a major contributor to the seasonal landscape in southeastern Canada and in New England. Fall tourism is a boon to the economy of this region, especially in Vermont, New Hampshire and Western Massachusetts.
In the American Pacific Northwest, it is the spectacular fall colors of the Vine Maple (A. circinatum) that draw tourists and photographers.
I moved the Japanese eg to the start as the tradition is much longer-established in Japan then in North America. I haven't made any changes yet 22.214.171.124 23:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks good, why not just add it? I will. KP Botany 00:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, please, add it in. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)It looks good on the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Morpholgy section unsourced and false!
The morphology section needs to be re written and sourced. A few examples of things totally wrong include the statement that all maple flowers have 5 sepals and 5 petals: in reality some have none. It also claims that all have 12 stamens, which is also wrong. A. rubrum, for example, has between 4 and 12. Someone should do the research and fix this.Djlayton4 20:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Done, except the ref I used only gave up to max 10 stamens; if anyone can ref the 12, please add it - MPF 11:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Move to Acer?
I think the naming conventions dictate that this article should be under the name Acer rather than Maple. I don't know if a Maple would be considered something so familiar that it could be an exception to this rule. Any thoughts? Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 00:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- In this case, I would be inclined not to have the move go. In the case of higher groups, I favor using English names when they are well-known and correspond well to the actual definition of the genus, which is the case here. Circeus 01:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Bark close-ups would be nice
Bark details are usefull in the non-leaf season.
We have lots of these trees around - I'll see about getting a bark close-up picture.
SteveWork 22:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)SteveWork
Make disambiguation page?
- I've added the link back. — Matt Crypto 12:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The lead sentence "Trees or shrubs in the genus Acer are commonly called Maples" is preparing for the eventual redirection of this heading to "Acer". "Maples (Acer) are a genus of trees or shrubs." I believe is incorrect: "Maples" are not (sic) a genus.Nickrz 15:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
help please fast
hey, I'm in high school and am doing a report on Maples, please help, I need more info. My Wikipedia username is xgmx so reply here or on my talk page, I'm on my parent's computer though (they have a printer, I don't). Please help me get more info, I've read 3 books, checked out several sites, its due tommorow!!!!!!!!!!!!
126.96.36.199 01:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyone know what specie is this?
- This looks like just a normal Mapple tree to me. It probably is, but to be completely sure, you would have to see the rest of the tree. Killroy (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agree that A. palmatum is most likely. I can't think of any other commonly cultivated species that would fit that climate. Circeus (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Mushrooms (edible and otherwise) are usu. associated with trees,, like truffle with Douglas Fir, Chanterelle with Oak, etc. Is there any mushroom assoc'd with Maple? Curious minds... :-) Wikiak (talk) 02:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if "maple" needs to be capitalized or not ("maples" does not, but I'm not sure about the singular), but it should at least be consistent across the article. Right now it's capitalized in some places and not in others.--188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
File:Redmaple.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Redmaple.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
User:Docsevo added some information on the Quarryhill Botanical Garden's maple collections: a sentence in the lead about its efforts on behalf of A. pentaphyllum, and a sentence in #Collections noting its collection's sources (Asia) and depth (40 cultivars). While I appreciate these edits' encyclopedic WP:Tone and accuracy (despite a lack of references), I removed this information because it did not appear to be fair representation, relative to the article's treatment of other botanical gardens. Many other collections have more depth, and the pentaphyllum project, while apparently WP:NOBLE, is not the only such effort. I could perhaps be convinced otherwise,  but I would appreciate a talk-page discussion first; otherwise, especially with Docsevo's focussed contributions, I suspect a little WP:Promotion. This article is about an entire genus distributed around the world; there are a lot of Acer-related projects and efforts and institutions, and we can't include them all and should try not to include them unevenly. That said, Docsevo seems to be doing excellent, well-informed work in WP's botany areas, and I hope they stick around! FourViolas (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
B-Class criteria checklist
The following checklist is posted with the intent of determining whether this article meets the six B-Class criteria:
Is the article is suitably referenced, with inline citations? Does it have has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged?
Does the article reasonably cover the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies? Does it contain a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing?
Layout and organization
Does the article has a defined structure? Is the content organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind?
Is the article reasonably well-written? Does the prose contain no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly?
Does the article contain supporting materials where appropriate? Illustrations? Diagrams? Infobox?
Does the article present its content in an appropriately understandable way? Is it is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible? Does the article incorrectly assume unnecessary technical background OR are technical terms explained or avoided where possible.
- 02:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)