Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pinguicula moranensis

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 05:45, 9 March 2007.

Pinguicula moranensis[edit]

I wrote this article in January with the FA criteria in mind. It has since been peer reviewed. This article is currently the only thorough overview of this species available online (or in print since 1966) in the English language. --NoahElhardt 18:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks pretty good. Could you have a quick run through my checklist for a few minor issues - I can see date and image sizing issues. The first paragraph switches between using "cm" and "centimeters" - I think the former is correct. Trebor 18:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done! I unlinked all dates except the year of description, fixed dashes I had missed, and fixed the one mention of "cm." in the intro (MOS dictates spelling out units in text). Four images remain with a defined size, but these have aspect ratios or details that necessitate size definition.--NoahElhardt 20:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops, I meant to say I think the latter is correct. Thanks, I'll give the article a proper read through in a bit. Trebor 21:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment make sure the accessdates in the footnotes are formatted properly. MM/DD/YY and DD/MM/YY are not acceptable formats. Jay32183 22:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --NoahElhardt 00:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - looks good, but:
- Is the main source for the article Zamudio or Ruiz? For example these articles [1][2] from Acta Botánica Mexicana are credited to Sergio Zamudio (which suggests to me that Ruiz is actually the second surname).
  - Ruiz is indeed a second surname. It seems that in his latest work (the 2001 monograph), he decided to go by the name Ruiz, whereas his earlier publications list him as Zamudio. I ended up citing him as published. Is there a good way to denote that they are the same person?
- Could you supply more details on the Ruiz (Zamudio?) monograph - publisher, series, anything like that.
  - The monograph is his thesis, but I've added the institutional info.
- Ordering of notes - The extremely variable species has been redefined at least twice since,[5][4][6] - it would be less visually jarring if reference [4] came before reference [5]
  - Fixed.
- Note [10] refers to Cieslak et al. 2005, while note [11]] refers to Cieslak, T. et. al. 2005 - this should be consistent.
  - Fixed.
- Note [13] refers to Legendre 2000, but the reference list refers to Legendre 2002 - which is correct?
  - The former is. Fixed.
- Unlike the other references, note [17] goes directly to a reference. Is there a reason for the change in format? Guettarda 03:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - As is the case with [2] and [28], I couldn't figure out a good way to list [17] in the footnotes and indicate that a full reference could be found in the references, since these are web links and have limited bibliography data associated with them. Any suggestions? --NoahElhardt 05:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support this was quite good when it went to peer review and it's even better now. One question, the names of related species are not written consistently - some are redlinked, some are bold, and some are just plain italic. Is there a reason for which is which? Opabinia regalis 05:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- All species names are italicized as is customary for Latin names. Legitimate species have their first mention redlinked as pages for those species are planned. The first mention of species that have been merged with P. moranensis and are now considered synonyms are marked in bold since the article is about those "species", and thus those species are alternate page titles of sorts. --NoahElhardt 05:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was mostly the bold titles that stood out as odd. It's not a big issue, but I'm not sure that bolding them effectively conveys 'alternate page title/alternate name', especially to readers who are very unlikely to know that's what happens when you try to link a page to itself. Opabinia regalis 06:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looks very thorough and comprehensive - the prose is succinct and easy to read. Images on first glance look a little repetitive but each highlights different aspects well, and are visually impressive. Overall a nice FA Cas Liber 04:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - well-written, excellent attention to detail, easy to read, illustrated with excellent photographs. Great job! --Rkitko 08:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - meets and exceeds all of the FA criteria. Mgiganteus1 08:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm doing a thorough review before posting, so give me 24 hours from whenever I post this if this article is destined to fail FAC, but promote at will without my comments, thank you. KP Botany 07:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Can we take the references out of the lead? The lead isn't supposed to introduce any points not covered in the rest of the article, so I've always taken the approach that the references support the article, and the article supports the lead. It looks much neater that way IMO.
  - Note that not all of the footnotes in the lead sections are references. Some are notes (ex [3], [7]). The rest of the references cite information that is important in the lead, but that I feel people shouldn't have to root around the rest of the article for to find the appropriate references. --NoahElhardt 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No ecology section? I would be inclined to rename the "Plant characteristics" section to a "Description" section, to contain only information strictly related to anatomy and morphology. The carnivory stuff could go in a section called "Ecology", or "Carnivory" if this is the only ecological aspect covered.
  - Normally I would be inclined to agree. However, the carnivorous ecology of carnivorous plants is so closely linked to their anatomy that separating the two into separate sections results in either confusing disjunct data or two sections that basically repeat each other. Other ecological aspects such as pollination and herbivory are relatively unstudied for this species and don't warrant their own sections. --NoahElhardt 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The third level subsections create an unevenness, especially when there is only one of them per supersection. Can we promote or upmerge the "Winter rosette" and "20th century" sections?
  - I'll look into it. 20th century, at least, is rightfully a subsection of botanical history. Is the unevenness that big of an issue? --NoahElhardt 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a couple of spelling errors; I'll try to find time for a copyedit. Otherwise nice. Hesperian 00:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback!! --NoahElhardt 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is a well written article that needs a bit of attention to a number of details, that will take it up to FA status. I would like to see most of these details attended to, after which, I Support its promotion. There are two minor substantive issues, the rest are issues that I think, imo, will make the article more conform to a good standard for articles about plant species, and make them once they conform, accessible to a greater variety of readers. Carnivorous plants have a wide presence on the web, but not necessarily general articles outside of a few good ones already on Wikipedia. It will be nice to see some more up there. My editing comments will be posted on the article's talk page, so that all of the article's editors can address issues and discuss them where necessary. KP Botany 03:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I'm currently the only editor of this article, but I'll address your comments on the talk page. --NoahElhardt 07:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.