Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of alismatid monocot families/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of alismatid monocot families[edit]

List of alismatid monocot families (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A new plant series at FLC! A lot of important stuff is happening in the 2020s in botany, and I'd like to bring some lists to the Main Page that share the news and encourage the next generation of scientists and gardeners. I'll add author citations to the cladogram if you guys want them, but I have a slight preference to leave them off. I'd really rather not add species numbers to the tables, because for a large family, these numbers can change often, sometimes daily. As always ... everyone should feel free to comment, the more the merrier. I want to hear your ideas. - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick ping for the reviewers @CaptainEek, Casliber, and ChrisTheDude: While working on the next list in the series, we became aware that having this many image columns in a complex table doesn't scale well with smaller screens, so I just deleted one column of images and the "references" column (and the now-useless parts of the Key section, too). Probably doesn't make a difference to you folks, but, you know, full disclosure. - Dank (push to talk) 19:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support - looks promising. Will read again and comment later (bookmarking) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thx much. This is my attempt at a "view from two miles up" approach to botany that might be suitable for some Main Page readers, at least I hope it will be. But other approaches might work ... I'm flexible (or try to be). - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
many of them are herbaceous, aquatic plants - should the comma be there?
Removed.
From the cladogram, they're not a monophyletic group (????)
Right, this is a grade and not a clade ... but it's still one of the three groups that the monocots are generally divided into (only the commelinids form a clade). Would you like me to explain this in the "Key and cladograms" section, or maybe in a note? - Dank (push to talk) 01:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think it's important to have as an explanatory footnote somewhere on the page Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done (the "not a clade" part). - Dank (push to talk) 04:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Casliber ... FWIW, I'm going to add Kubitzki's Families and Genera of Vascular Plants series as a source when possible for future lists, to beef up the type genus description ... I'm also going to add a bit more description today to this list, but without Kubitzki (the volume that covers Alismatales is $380 on Amazon! Yikes.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added descriptions for all now, mainly of leaves and inflorescences, so this should be ready for you to look at. Tomorrow I'll link the new terms I added. I'm hoping these technical terms won't throw people: there aren't very many of them, they'll all be linked, and you've got the images right there. I may be able to minimize links by converting some of these into the words that PoTW tends to use ("sword-shaped" instead of ensiform, for instance). - Dank (push to talk) 05:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from CaptainEek[edit]

For starters, love the comparison between the titan arum and the duckweed, really puts the diversity of the families into perspective. Always glad to see plant FA's.

  • The (both pictured) is unnecessary and a bit unusual imo. The reader can easily look at the pictures, and see that both are pictured.
  • The images in the refs and illustration column are too small, and for some reason, smaller than the images in the other columns. They're too tiny to make much detail out of, and they would look nicer standardized to the rest of the photos.
  • For the origin of the names, I would put the references in the table, not just in the header. That way it is very clear which reference goes to what.
  • Same goes for the notes. Citation should be at the end of the relevant sentence/paragraph, as a precise pincite.
  • Another origin of names point: the Greek: vs. Greek name thing is kind of confusing. If that's the standard way to go about it, I guess that's fine. But I wonder if there is a better way to say it? Like "After the Greek plant Juncagin". I also have to wonder if some of those Greek name/Latin name things could be further translated. I know at least for bird names I've used a scientific name dictionary (Helm Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names), which has provided excellent translations for even the most obscure of names. I've not ever used one for plants I must say, but I imagine that info should exist. That, or even just a regular Latin/Greek dictionary should be of assistance.
  • Capitalization: capitalize the first word of the column headers, i.e. Common name, Type genus. I would say same goes for the common names column entries, but I see other plant lists not doing that. I find that to be...weird. It looks unprofessional? I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts as to why you wouldn't capitalize what is effectively the start of a standalone sentence/clause
  • Acoraceae: "according to some authors." Which? Either specify, or give a citation.
  • Hydrocharitaceae: Wikilink invasive
  • Scheuchzeriaceae: I dislike the "Habitat: " You don't do that with any of the other entries, so it feels out of place. You could easily say "Found in..." and it would read better.
  • Zosteraceae: Seems to be missing an authority. If its really not mentioned in any of the listed authorities, then is it really an alismatid?
  • In your cladogram, reverse the references so that 5 comes before 6.

All in all, well done. No rush on implementing this, I'll try to reply promptly but life is busy right now :) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 00:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Wonderfully helpful, thanks. Everything done (see if you agree), except for these: 1. the Zostera citation is Christenhusz. 2. ""After the Greek plant Juncagin": if I refer to the name of a Greek plant, I'd probably have to write it in Greek, which would be confusing for my target readership ... and the bigger problem is, there's often disagreement among authorities (classical and modern) as to how the Greeks spelled the word. The best way to solve this problem, I think, is just to say that the current family name is similar to a classical Greek plant name. 3. I considered adding this explanation to the article text, but I think I won't, I'll just say it here: although many authors have taken guesses at what meanings the Romans and Greeks might have assigned to these plant names, there is no way to know for certain what meanings were assigned across multiple languages and countries two millennia ago; we can only say that some classical authority identified these words as plant names. OTOH, for Latin and Greek names that were assigned invented by naturalists after, say, 1500, it becomes very possible guess later authors will usually agree on a meaning, even when the original authorities didn't provide that information. Those are the names where I say "Greek: blah blah", etc. I can't explain this in these thin columns, but I could explain more in the Key section if you like. (Also: I don't have much wiggle-room left on etymology issues, because most of these things were hashed out over the years that I was pushing the etymology articles through FLC.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Alright, all those changes look good. Re: 1, now that you've reordered things, it makes more sense to me. No need to change. Re 2 and 3, that explanation makes sense, no need to change. Thanks for humoring me and laying it out :) I haven't done a source or image review, but aside from that, its a promote from me! CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks kindly! Wonderful. Btw ... the "nominations viewer" script (and maybe a bot now? don't know) needs to see the word "support" so that reviewers can see at a glance how many supports a nomination has so far. - Dank (push to talk) 13:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I just changed "Greek name" to "Greek plant name" and "Latin name" to "Latin plant name"; hope that helps with the ambiguity you were seeing. - Dank (push to talk) 07:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Apologies for the ping after you've already done your job, CaptainEek, but I'm being asked over at WP:TREEREQ which source(s) should be consulted for my next cladogram (and presumably for this one too). Do you have any objections to using APG IV (from 2016), or would you prefer something more recent. If so, what? - Dank (push to talk) 13:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC) Actually, cancel that, the cladograms I've got so far will hopefully be sufficient. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • There's no need for a "see also" before the lead when the same link is literally in the first three words of the lead
  • Are there appropriate links for "glabrous" or "long-petiolate"? No idea what either of these means
  • Similarly "sagittate or hastate"
  • Similarly "subopposite, rarely ternate"
  • I think the number in eg "1 genus" would look better written as words
  • That's what I got! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chris. All done except the links. I'll do them, it's just that that's a laborious process of combing through my best sources to see when I can and can't get away with converting them to English words (and I'm half-asleep). Should get done today. - Dank (push to talk) 11:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All done, Chris (and Casliber). - Dank (push to talk) 16:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AK[edit]

  • Is the note about monocots being responsible for most agricultural output really relevant?
  • Maybe link "veins" to leaf venation?
  • Are some of the more unusual author abbreviations in the refs (CS, St.) standard?
  • That's all I really have comments about, pretty nice list overall. AryKun (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • All done, thanks. I didn't remove the monocot note; one of the things I try to keep in mind with FLs is that a lot of them will show up on the Main Page some day, and our Main Page readership tends to be really diverse. Some of the readers may remember hearing the word "monocot" a long time ago, but they'll be fuzzy on what that means. Saying "single cotyledon" will probably mean zip to them. Saying "grass, palm, banana, ginger, asparagus, pineapple, sedge and onion", as I do in the note, will probably be more helpful. And when I give a list of things, I try to start off with a common bond if possible, and the bond in this case is agriculture. Does that work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I don't have any issues with the note. No other problems with the article, so a support from me. AryKun (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • All images are appropriate and seem correctly licensed. My only query is that in each pair of images, the right hand one has the alt text "same", presumably indicating that it has the same content as the picture to the left. Can I confirm that this is an appropriate use of alt text? I had a look at WP:ALT but couldn't figure it out..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think what I'll do is change the format to match my next list ... then the question will be moot, because both images will share the same caption (equal to the alt text) and be in the actual same cell (instead of appearing to be in the same cell). - Dank (push to talk) 16:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review – All of the sources appear to be sufficiently reliable and well-formatted, and no issues were detected by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_alismatid_monocot_families/archive1&oldid=1121760094"