Jump to content

Talk:Oak/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 21:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Time for me to return (one of) the favour(s)! Will have comments up in a few days. Esculenta (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right off the bat I have to comment about some missing taxonomy. Since this is an article about the genus, I'd expect to see some mention of who named it and when, and what the type species is. I see it was Linnaeus from the taxobox, so it would be interesting to read what he said about it, where the type was from, and what other species he included in the genus. I wonder if there were any other major taxonomic developments that occurred from Linnaeus to 2017 that could be added (within the greatly restrained summarizing constraints of GA, of course)? Esculenta (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added a bit about Linnaeus's work on the genus. I've had a nose around but can't find anything significant on the genus as a whole. As late as 2011, people were calling the taxonomy "challenging" and hoping for better things in the form of the fancy new genomics thingy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the taxobox shows that the immediate parent of Quercus is Quercoideae, but this name is not mentioned in the text. Esculenta (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll see if I can add something suitably brief! Never been keen on duck-speak (querc, quercus, Quercoideae) so will try to give some real context. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I've added an external phylogeny, which shows that the two clades are ... either due to be called separate genera, or the tan oak and chestnuts are Quercus! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Esculenta (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • I think it's a good idea if a genus article states how many species there are in the lead
  • Added.
  • possibly useful links: evergreen, gall, nodule, tanning, Wine barrel, invasive pest, habitat loss, national tree, thunder god, Basque Country
  • Linked.
  • "They live in association with many kinds of mushroom including truffles." really, to be pedanticaccurate, it should say "mushroom-forming fungi"
  • Fixed.

Etymology

[edit]
  • maybe link generic to genus, not everyone will know they're the same
  • Done.
  • link Proto-Indo-European, Old English, Proto-Germanic
  • Done.

Description

[edit]
  • links: dicotyledonous, entire leaves
  • Done.
  • I'm left wanting a bit after reading the description section. Possible things that could be expanded:
  • size and bark: details about the typical height range of oak trees and a description of the bark (e.g., texture, colour) might provide more insight into the tree's physical characteristics. Which of all of the oaks tends to be the largest? The smallest?
  • growth rate: some mention of how quickly or slowly oaks tend to grow might be useful. Do we know what/where the oldest oak tree is?
  • root system: information on the type of root system oaks have (deep taproot vs. shallow spreading roots) could be beneficial.
  • variability: a brief mention of the variability in appearance and size among the different species of oaks might be valuable.

Distribution

[edit]
  • this section seems really weak. Even the waybacked source the section is cited to has much more information about the genus that could be included. A Google Scholar search for "quercus phytogeography" returns 15,000 results… so maybe this section could be fleshed out a bit to more accurately reflect the amount of scholarship out there on this specific subject? Esculenta (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

[edit]
  • maybe links: Oregon, Quercus hiholensis, pro parte, genome, genome sequencing, mutation, disease resistance, phylogenetic tree, synonym,
    • Linked.
  • Second sentence of "Fossil history" needs work; it has ambiguity in the subject reference (what is "it" referring to?), the quote isn't attributed, nested modifiers make it difficult to parse. How about "In a survey of the fossil record of Quercus, researchers concluded that Quercus macroremains from the pre-Paleogene and potentially pre-Eocene periods are generally represented by poorly preserved fossils. These fossils often lack the critical features necessary for definitive identification, warranting caution in their interpretation."
    • Reworded.
  • "oldest records in Asia being from the Middle Eocene" better?
    • Done.
  • I'm wondering about the Quercus hispanica leaf, is this an extinct taxon? Is it any relation to Quercus × hispanica?
    • The latter.
  • I'm a little confused by the identical naming of the Quercus pro parte clades in the "External phylogeny" cladogram; do they correspond to the "New World" and "Old World" discussed in the next section (and if so could they be labelled as such)?
    • They may well do, but if so the source doesn't say which is which.
  • "showed that the Quercus genus consisted" scientific convention is to put rank before the taxonomic name
    • Fixed.
  • molecular phylogenetics is linked twice, but phylogenetics is not linked
    • Removed overlink.
  • "Molecular techniques for phylogenetic analysis showed that the Quercus genus consisted of Old World and New World clades,[19] and then much further detail.[20][21]" it seems a summary note at the end of that sentence never got expanded?
    • No, the detail is in the diagram, but removed the phrase as not needed.
  • "In addition, the generation of RAD-seq loci for hundreds of oak species has allowed for the construction of the most highly detailed oak phylogeny to date." could we chop/replace the jargon with something like "In addition, by analyzing specific DNA sequences from hundreds of oak species, researchers have been able to create the most detailed family tree of oaks to date." ?
    • Edited.
  • "However, the high signal of introgression (by hybridization) across the genus's phylogenetic tree" how about this "However, the high signal of introgressive hybridization (the transfer of genetic material from one species to another through repeated backcrossing with hybrid offspring) across the genus's phylogenetic tree
    • Edited.
  • link type species earlier
    • Done.
  • some overlinking evident in subsection "Subsection Quercus"
  • the term "styles" is used 7 times in the description of the subgenera (never linked), but is absent from the description section, which seems like an omission given their seeming importance as a taxonomic character. I'm also learning about nodes, ovaries, stipules, bristles, secondary venation (does that mean there's primary venation as well?) and teeth for the first time here too.
    • Linked several. Every flowering plant has styles; the number and length are useful in distinguishing between species in many genera.
  • what's a concrescent ring?
    • Reworded.
  • the type species of subgenus Cerris is not mentioned (in contrast to the other section)
    • Added.

Ecology

[edit]

possible links: Mediterranean; subtropical, Piedmont truffle, maybe link "symbiotic relationship" to mycorrhiza; germination, pollen, morphologically, loci, gene flow, lumped

  • Ramaria flavosaponaria is a coral fungus and by some definitions not a mushroom
    • Tweaked.
  • "support more than 900 species of caterpillars" the source actually says more than 950
    • Changed.
  • "Oaks are affected by a large number of pests and diseases; Q. robur and Q. petraea are host to 423 insect species of British trees." phrasing is a bit awkward, could we try something like: "Oaks are susceptible to a multitude of pests and diseases. For instance, Quercus robur and Q. petraea in Britain host 423 insect species. This diversity includes…"
    • Edited.
  • The block of text starting "Sudden oak death (Phytophthora ramorum) is a water mould …" ending with "… use oaks as food plants and can defoliate them.[55]" Will need better sourcing. The current citation only sources the final sentence of that text, and is not a good source for Wikipedia (commercial, selling products, lots of ads)
    • Removed. The gall wasps are covered in a separate subsection.
  • should mention in the powdery mildew caption what fungal species it is
    • Done.
  • "In Europe, the species Erysiphe alphitoides is the most common.[56][7]" I don't see powdery mildew mentioned anywhere in the second cited source.
    • Removed.
  • what is the general negative effect of powdery mildews on oaks (is it a reduction of photosynthetic efficiency, or are they causing physical damage to the leaf?)
    • Added with ref.
  • only diseases/pests in Britain, the UK, and Europe are mentioned. Could we have a sentence or two about pests/diseases elsewhere for balance? For example, in the US, Goldspotted Oak Borer (Agrilus auroguttatus) has destroyed many oak trees; Sudden Oak Death is also a problem in California; Gypsy Moth is a problem in the eastern US. In Asia, there's the oak-defoliating Luthrodes pandava, and Japanese oak wilt, etc.
    • Added.

Toxicity

[edit]
  • "...poisonous if eaten in large amounts to livestock including cattle..." slightly awkward, how about "...poisonous to livestock, including cattle, if eaten in large amounts..."
    • Done.
  • "The exception is the domestic pig, which may be fed entirely on acorns in the right conditions," I suggest "An exception is the domestic pig, which, under the right conditions, can be fed entirely on acorns,"
    • Done.
  • is there a wide range of variability among oak species in terms of tannins? Are there any species (or groups) known to have particularly low or high levels?
    • Tannins are widespread and present in large amounts in many species, so I think we have the bases well enough covered there.
  • is it worthwhile to add a sentence mentioning green acorn toxicity in horses? [1], doi:10.1111/evj.12306?
    • Added.

Uses

[edit]
  • possibly useful links: mechanical properties ("mechanical/mechanically" used 3 times in this paragraph); agricultural implement; fodder; traditional medicine; potable
  • Linked.
  • could you please check the sourcing for the first bit of this section; a primary study from 2013 is being used to contradict a "popular belief". Have any secondary sources since corroborated this statement? Also, the wiki article talks about uses such as "furniture, floors, building frames, and veneers", but this primary study is really testing the "mechanical properties" (and they define what they mean by this precisely, unlike us) of oak for use as railway ties
  • Removed mention of popular belief. Added separate source for general uses.
  • I checked the cited source and confirmed that the source does indeed say that Quercus rubra is highly prized for lumber. But it doesn't say anything else really relevant and is a somewhat unusual source for this in that it's so highly technical and perhaps difficult to access.
  • It's a reliable source. Sometimes verification requires a visit to the British Library for the sole manuscript.
  • I checked the source for the statement "Shumard oak, a member of the red oak subgenus, provides timber described as "mechanically superior" to northern red oak." and can't see where any part of that sentence is supported. Mechanical superiority might refer to durability, hardness, tensile strength, density, and/or water resistance, so who know what this statement really means.
  • Removed.
  • I think most people know what a ship is, so perhaps it's more useful to link to shipbuilding or boatbuilding
  • Done.
  • The latter. Edited.
  • Do we know from what species bark is used to make shingles in Korea?
  • One of the sources is sawtooth oak. Added ref.
  • "The dried bark of the white oak was used in traditional medical preparations." I think it would be interesting and useful to mention why it was used (for tannic acid) and the purported properties (astringent & antiseptic), and clarify that this was recommended in the American pharmacopoeia over a century ago.
  • Added.
  • cheese seems a low-value link
  • Added a ref.

Conservation

[edit]
  • Linked.
  • "The countries with the highest numbers of threatened oak species…" perhaps mention it's as of 2020
  • Added.
  • overlinking of well-known countries
  • Removed.
  • "However, it has also been suggested that oaks as generally light-demanding trees with a relatively high tolerance for mechanical disturbance might depend on grazers like bison and the clearances they create in order to regenerate successfully, thus missing them since they were extirpated in most regions following the European colonization." This sentence is quite difficult to parse.
  • Simplified.

Culture

[edit]
  • maybe links: insignia; rank; thunder and/or lightning god; divine; Royalist; Roman Republic
  • Linked.
  • "The oak is a common symbol of strength and endurance and is the national tree of many countries including Ireland." The cited source doesn't support most of the sentence; the national tree of Ireland is the more specific Quercus patrea. Also, it's odd that "strength" is easter-egg linked to "virtue". The fourth sentence of this section returns to this theme, listing (and linking) a bunch of countries that have the oak as their national tree. I checked the (waybacked) citation and it's sourced to a page from the website of "Venables Oak", timber specialists. Looks like this page is from where the sentence "The oak is a common symbol of strength and endurance" comes from …
  • Replaced citation for first claim. Removed Easter Egg.
  • "It is the symbol of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom,[95]" looks like someone snuck in a link to the conservative party page there (no mention of oak leaves on that page, but they are looking for volunteers and donations!)
  • Replaced ref with RS.
  • citation #93 ( "Political or Symbolic". Extended Definition: oak.) seems to be a circular Wikipedia reference (scroll down). Will need better sourcing for final sentence of "Symbols" subsection
  • Removed ref and text.
  • source 101 (A Dictionary of Literary Symbols. Cambridge.): Any more bibliographic details? author (editor?), year, volume, page #?
  • Added. Entry has entry/section title (Oak) not page.
  • maybe include mention of Donar's Oak, the sacred tree of the Germanic pagans, chopped in the 8th century by Saint Boniface, a significant event in the Christianization of the Germanic peoples.
  • Decided against this earlier, we have a "main" link to a list of such trees and several examples already.
  • "it was called the "civic oak crown"" our article calls it the Civic Crown (without mentioning "civic oak crown")
  • Edited.
  • for consistency, add a unit conversion to the "Grīdnieku ancient oak" image caption
  • Added.
  • I think the image caption stating that oak leaves are a part of the coat of arms of Estonia needs a citation (it's not mentioned in the article text)
  • Added.

Images

[edit]
  • I've checked all of the many images, including the leaf images used in the cladogram, and verified that they all have appropriate licensing (nice work with all of those leaf extracts!). They are relevant to their respective sections and have appropriate captions.
    Thanks!

Sources

[edit]

In general the sources are fine (i.e. formatted appropriately, reliable), and I have been spot-checking as I've been reading to confirm to source-text integrity.

  • Noted.

Just a few concerns:

  • Could you provide a better source for current citation #57 ("Invasion of toxic moths". The Northern Echo. 10 July 2012.); their archive page doesn't seem to have this article, and it seems like important information that could be readily sourced elsewhere
    • Added Forestry Commission ref.
  • citation #89 ( "The Red List of Oaks 2020") doesn't seem to have any information
    • Marked current page as dead, added archive.
  • need replacement for citation #115 (El Mundo, 26 February 2005, Otro árbol de Gernika), page has moved or something
    • Removed URL, the newspaper citation is valid without it.
  • citation #118 (Marvell, Andrew. "The Garden") only give the text of the discussed poem, and not any analysis, which needs to be sourced. I would argue that Marvell doesn't outright mock, but rather critiques or questions the worth of external accolades, represented by the "leafy crown", suggesting that there might be deeper, more meaningful forms of fulfillment and connection to be found in nature and introspection.
    • Edited and cited.

As a final suggestion, how about taking out the authorities in the "Subgenera and sections" part of the taxobox (to keep it simple), and instead place those authorities in the Taxonomy section. Esculenta (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much rather not do that, they're conventionally placed as they are. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had always thought it was more conventional to not list the authorities for subtaxa in the taxobox. To confirm, I checked all of the higher taxon FAs and GAs, and the vast majority of them do not (e.g. (cactus, Russulaceae, Centipede, animal, Stramenopile, flowering plant, Marchantiophyta, Liliaceae). Esculenta (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment from MeegsC

[edit]

It might be worth mentioning that jay species and oak species have mutualistic relationships. There are no native oaks anywhere without jays, as the birds are the primary "planters" and distributors of acorns. Some potentially useful works:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oak/GA1&oldid=1180590021"