Talk:Symphyotrichum lateriflorum

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleSymphyotrichum lateriflorum is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 5, 2022.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 14, 2021Good article nomineeListed
October 31, 2021Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 18, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the blossoms of Symphyotrichum lateriflorum (examples pictured) have been used by the Meskwaki as a smudge "to cure a crazy person who has lost his mind"?
Current status: Featured article

Ecology section[edit]

(moved from Hyperik's talk page —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 13:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Hey, I added common names and split the Symphyotrichum lateriflorum Ecology section out into a few paragraphs. It will be easier to read on a small device, I think. The wasps and bees paragraph is kind of a run-on though. Tell me what you think and edit if you wish. :) --Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's necessary to link to BugGuide, DiscoverLife, or other references except in cases where the entry lists the insect as visiting the flowers of S. lateriflorum. I did a quick glance at a few of them and didn't see any mention of calico aster. Those refs would be better placed/fleshed out on the respective articles of the insect species. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 19:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was actually referencing their common names with sources, which would be better placed in the insects' respective articles. I'll make a note to get on that. Thanks! --Eewilson (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I just noticed a few typos which I can of course fix as we work together. The timing is good because I’m busy this week as well. Thank you so much! Eewilson (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLANTS template[edit]

(moved TO DO list to a TO DO section) --Eewilson (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--Eewilson (talk) 06:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for consistency, the subheadings/sections should follow the WP:PLANTS template. Someone will eventually fix this if you don't. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! --Eewilson (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If each infraspecies is treated with a description (just highlighting differences from the species), distribution, conservation status, and history, then using this template would sprinkle each one into each section. Thoughts?--Eewilson (talk) 13:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TO DO[edit]

  • Add descriptions of varieties, cultivars, and hybrids.
  • History of "discovery" and naming.

--Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synonym list in taxon box[edit]

Should the synonyms in the taxon box only include the basionym and the previously known by? This would be Solidago lateriflora L. and Aster lateriflorus (L.) Britton, then other synonyms would be covered in a Taxonomic history section. --Eewilson (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson:, the synonym list in the taxobox should be comprehensive, but can be set to be collapsed by default (as you've done) if there are a large number of synonyms. Perhaps it would be appropriate to put the basionym and any especially prominent synonyms (e.g. the Aster combinations for species now in Symphyotrichum) outside of the collapsed section; such practice hasn't been proposed anywhere before that I'm aware of, but I'm not opposed to it. Plantdrew (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew:, I had actually thought about that! Good input. See what you think now. Thanks. --Eewilson (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Plantdrew (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B-class![edit]

@Plantdrew: thank you for the assessment and move to B-class. I have worked on it quite a bit lately and was pleasantly surprised. I’m interested to know what else would be required to get it to GA. Would it make sense for it to be nominated for that since there is a backlog? The review process for that would be likely to improve the article regardless of the end result. —Eewilson (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work expanding the article. I don't have very much experience with the GA process. One suggestion is that images in the Description and Ecology section should be put in a horizontal gallery (I understand you're trying to have the leaf image in the leaf section, but the text that a givenn image renders next to is highly dependent on screen size/resolution).
I don't think the GA backlog would be a problem. The backlog develops when there isn't a good match between people interested in a reviewing a particular subject area and people interested in writing in that area. There aren't any plants in need of review right now, and the oldest un-reviewed GA nomination for a (non-fossil) organism only goes back to November 2nd.
@Casliber: has a lot of experience with plant GAs, and might have some other suggestions for you (or perhaps be willing to take up the formal GA review). Plantdrew (talk) 04:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew: The gallery is a good idea and I did that. Also discovered the Gallery template, which I did not know about. —Eewilson (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I am happy to do either - i.e. either review if you nominate it at GA or do some working on it now before nomination (though I then can't review it). Either is fine by me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber:, @Plantdrew:: I think it would be great if you (Cas) want to do some work on it or want to review it. Whichever is up to you unless Plantdrew has a suggestion. I do know that for my own Wikihealth and the article's betterment, I should sit back and watch for a little while so it can get some more work on it by someone who knows more. It will also be a good exercise for me to learn strengths and weaknessess in this article and what I've done. Cas, which do you prefer? Working on it or reviewing it?
Okay, I will have a play with it to align it more like other plant GA/FA articles, and offer some ideas. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback and where to go from here[edit]

Okay then, classically the idea has been to make an article prose-y, so an example is Xerochrysum bracteatum which I buffed to FA status some years ago (another daisy!! - I got keen after growing a bunch of them in my garden). So have begun rearranging to make text less chopped up and more flowing (downside is I am then not able to review this but I am sure someone else will eventually). Will post some ideas below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Great! Thank you. I've had ideas of adding content. Opinions on whether these items would be of value or not are welcomed by all. I have a tendency to get too detailed, too "bullet-pointy," too comprehensive sometimes, so these may not be a good idea. Ideas include the following:
  • More in ecology — co-occuring species. Or would this be in habitat?
could do it in either. If just co-occurring I leave in habitat Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked this and it could get huge and ugly because Symphyotrichum lateriflorum can grow in so many habitats. Co-occuring plant species are dependent upon the habitat. I question the value of going in too deep... have to think on that. --Eewilson (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short descriptions of the varieties — the varieties are "controversial" for this species, I would say, but I think listing them without providing some description isn't of value in a Wikipedia article. The reader wouldn't even begin to know where to find that information, although I do because I've done that research (have been working on it anyway).
agreed - need to add/explain why a particular variety is considered distinctive.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Going along the lines of prose-y, maybe remove the bullet points and just put the synonyms of the varieties in a sentence or short paragraph.
agreed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That part is DONE --Eewilson (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short descriptions of the hybrids, although I'm not sure that can be found by me without an idea of where to look.
yes if possible - also if wild-occurring then leave in taxonomy section. If in cultivation need to be moved to a uses and cultivation section, whuch is where cultivars should go too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The hybrids listed in the Hybrids section have been found in the wild. Pretty sure there's documentation on that... Come to think of it, this elaboration would be necessary. --Eewilson (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Short descriptions of the cultivars, or perhaps mention of the common ones that I found online.
agreed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eewilson (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is type specimen information of importance on Wikipedia, or is that really only for the more scientific Wikispecies? --Eewilson (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
location of type is important as it serves as an anchor for taxon name, so I'd definitely add Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also... :) Is peer review something that's done? I mean someone who is familiar with the species or genus? Is that part of GA review? --Eewilson (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review is very quiet. Some articles come together easily and some just don't. Will see how this progresses but given we have plenty of examples of plant articles I think moving from GAN to FAC is ok provided the article gets a pretty thorough GA review. Some people really put an article through the cleaners (a good thing!) where as some are briefer. We'll see. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOre:

... is a species of flowering plant native to parts of North America. - "parts of" is pretty vague and unhelpful, wouldn't it be better as " is a species of flowering plant native to eastern and central North America."?
DONE --Eewilson (talk) 04:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Type specimen[edit]

@Casliber: @Plantdrew: Here's what I found on the type specimen (actually, someone put it on Wikispecies page just as I was looking for it):

  • Protologue locality: "Habitat in America septentrionali. Kalm."
  • Lectotype: Herb. Linn. No. 998.6 (LINN), designated by Reveal & Jarvis, Taxon 58: 981 (2009).

The type is as designated above in second bullet point. In the article in Taxon, R&J also write regarding this species, "See summary of earlier type statements in Jarvis (2007: 863)." That reference is to the book Order out of Chaos: Linneaean Plant Names and their Types. It actually looks like a great book. Not sure where to locate a copy near me, but also not sure it's necessary that I do for this article. To my question: Given that the information in the bullet points is sparse regarding location, and perhaps cryptic to the user regarding lectotype, how would this best be worded in a Wikipedia article? --Eewilson (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. A bit busy with RL chores. Will have a think about it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have something started here: User:Eewilson/sandbox. Also includes my notes. --Eewilson (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks really good - key is that all assumptions need to have been discussed in other sources. This took me some time to get my head around Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: What took you time to get your head around? That all assumptions need to have been discussed in other sources? Or what I wrote in my sandbox? --Eewilson (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I meant me, years ago. Conforming my writing to sticking to references and not writing original research. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Yes. I have had to rely on the facts in my genealogical research and writing, although that is different because it is original research, and it really should be.--Eewilson (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Type specimen updates[edit]

@Casliber: I have found a nasty can of muck with the specimen situation for this plant. It's one for which Linnaeus did not specify a type specimen. Thank you, Carl. There have been several who have addressed this issue and the incorrectly labeled specimens in the Linnean Herbarium, the latest being Reveal&Jarvis in 2009. But comparing what they wrote to what I found online, either they got it wrong with a typo or they just got it wrong. It appears that Asa Gray got it right, and even there in 1882 in the article draft I reference (see 998.9), he associates the two, but still he treats Solidago lateriflora and Aster diffusus (another now-synonym) as two species. Or whatever. Heck, I'm kinda getting confused so I'm stopping for the night. Can you read my updates from today, please? User:Eewilson/sandbox --Eewilson (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RLJ: You may find this of interest since it has to do with the type specimen of Symphyotrichum lateriflorum. Go to my sandbox to see what is being worked on for the Wikipedia article for this species. There are conflicts between what Reveal&Jarvis state is the lectotype and what the LINN specimens are. Eewilson (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your message! Essential content of Order Out of Chaos can be found here, with irregular and incomplete updates: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/linnaean-typification/ . The account on Solidago lateriflora has been updated with the typification by Reveal & Jarvis 2009. Linn. No. 998.6 apparently belongs to Solidago and is strikingly different from Linn. No. 998.7, the other specimen in discussion. I think the best way to solve this issue is to contact Jarvis. -RLJ (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those links (I've been looking at them online) and your input to contact Jarvis. I have been thinking that may be the way. I am certain that 998.6 is Solidago sp. as it grows in my backyard. So does Symphyotrichum lateriflorum, and I can pick it out pretty well. I think Asa Gray may have had the right idea with specimen 998.9 being what was Aiton's Aster diffusus which is now one of Symphyotrichum lateriflorum's synonyms. I would like to see this plant have a proper lectotype. Eewilson (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, both species (and other Solidago and Symphyotrichum spp.) grow wild in my backyard. Eewilson (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
998.7 is definitely not Symphyotrichum lateriflorum, nor does it seem to fit Linnaeus' description of Solidago lateriflora. It appears to be, to my eye, Solidago flexicaulis, the broad-leaved goldenrod. Eewilson (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The convention of formally designating type specimens post-dates Linnaeus. Without looking into the specifics here, I'll note that many Linnaean species haven't had types designated until very recently (there is a project working on designating types for all Linnaean species). For types that have been designated longer ago, there may be some issues with the typification (as seems to be the case here). The status of a type for Homo sapiens is rather murky (it's probably Linnaeus himself, but see Talk:Carl_Linnaeus/Archive_2#Type_specimen). Plantdrew (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When did formally designating, or attaching, specimens as types to plant definitions begin? Eewilson (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A set of nomenclatural rules proposed in 1892 was the first to recommend typification, but there were a lot of competing rule sets at that time. 1924 is when it first appeared in a widely (but not universally) accepted rule set. The 1892 proposal didn't invent the type concept out of thin air; some botanists had already been designating types. I don't know who was the first to do so nor when they did it. Plantdrew (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew: Thanks! Eewilson (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RLJ: @Casliber: @Plantdrew: I emailed Dr. Jarvis yesterday regarding the type specimens. I will let you all know when or if I hear from him. Eewilson (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RLJ: @Casliber: @Plantdrew: Yesterday (11 December 2020), I received a response from Charlie Jarvis. He is now retired and says he is not in a position to pursue this. He is not familiar with the North American species — that was part of Jim Reveal's contribution. Dr. Reveal passed away in 2015. Dr. Jarvis said this is something that should be looked into and directed me to contact a specialist familiar with this species for advisement. He suggested Nesom and Semple. I will be contacting one or both of them next regarding the inconsistency of the type specimen and possible re-review of a lectotype (or appropriate type) for Solidago lateriflora L.. Eewilson (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RLJ: @Casliber: @Plantdrew: I wrote to Dr. Semple and Dr. Nesom yesterday, 15 December 2020, about the type issue. In the meantime, what I have written in my sandbox in preparation for the article has content that is not dependent upon any future action by anyone regarding correcting or addressing the inconsistencies with the type specimen. It reports the state as it is. No rush, Cas. Just whenever real life lets up on you a bit. Eewilson (talk) 08:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy type specimen additions ready for review in my sandbox[edit]

@Casliber: In my User sandbox, I have information on the type specimen (or lack thereof) ready for your review. It includes all notes and sources. Once you either make changes to it (feel free to do so) or let me know what needs to change, and once it becomes satisfactory, I will add it to the article then move on to the next set of changes. Eewilson (talk) 12:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC) I also added a translation of the Solidago lateriflora of Linnaeus from Latin to English which was done for me by a fellow iNat user. However, it should be reviewed by a Wikipedian. Eewilson (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew: Are there Wikipedians in the Plants Project who are taxonomy geniuses? I have multiple questions about typification of this species and nomenclatural precedence that I need to ask for the article or seek some others to write certain parts. Eewilson (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - been really busy IRL - another user who might be interested is @Circeus: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you can try me. I'm no formal taxonomist, but I know my way around the code. Circéus (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Hi! I'm going to add the taxon history intro to the article and leave off the type information until I hear more from the non-Wikipedia experts (e.g., Semple, Jarvis). —Eewilson (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay great -will have a proper look soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status update[edit]

@Casliber: I'm sure you're busy IRL. You have a busy life according to your profile! I can imagine especially right now. My real life is mostly this article :) right now. It has come oh so far! About all that is left are cultivars (which I am currently working on and enjoying, especially since I didn't think I'd find much but am), hybrids (which I have begun and will be hard and not nearly as fun as cultivars), possibly a bit more in the phylogenetics department (probably will be in the same literature containing hybrid information), and a lead expansion which is in my sandbox. Before GAN, there may be an additional sentence about the TYPE for the species and already are for some for the varieties. If you could spare a few minutes to review the lead expansion in User:Eewilson/sandbox, that would be great. Otherwise, I can just put it out there. —Eewilson (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson: that looks fine. I recommend slotting it in now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! —Eewilson (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status update — 17 January 2021[edit]

@Casliber: @Hyperik: Seeking input on the following from you two and anybody else.

There have been many updates, but currently seeking input on these items. Work is still in progress. Thank you in advance. —Eewilson (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC) & Eewilson (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC) & Eewilson (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for full review[edit]

@Casliber: It's ready for your full read and review. Can't say it has everything, but if you can and have the time, can you take a look again? Eewilson (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

damn - sorry - meant to look when you pinged above. will get to it soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • People have criticised putting in names from other languages (unless indigenous ones).
    • Dang, I tried hard to find those, too. Well, if they want them out, they can come out. -E
  • As a vascular plant, it grows from roots, and as a eudicot, it has two seed leaves upon germination. - I'd leave this sentence out as too general and off-topic. Is like labouring the point a dog has four legs or somesuch....
    • Okay, but I liked that sentence. ;) -E  Done

more later (gotta sleep...nearly 1am here!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Hope you have time to look at it more this weekend. –Eewilson (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is looking good - annoying having so many damn varieties but there you go. Am looking more now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Similar species section needs citations - also needs how they are distinguished - a published key might help here.
    • Can I just take it out? (just kidding - I'll try to find something) -E  In progress
  • It is native throughout its current North American range. - could be folded into the beginning of the previous para...
    •  Done
  • Symphyotrichum lateriflorum has been in cultivation in Europe since the mid-18th Century, and possibly prior. - I think this sentence is redundant.
    • You probably mean to kind of take it out. I think the section needs some sort of introductory sentence, so I changed it a bit, but this may not work either. See what you think of Symphyotrichum lateriflorum has been grown in the gardens of Europe since the mid-18th Century or prior. Also open to what you may want to put there.
      • Or forget that, this is better: The earliest record of Symphyotrichum lateriflorum in gardens was of a synonym of S. lateriflorum var. horizontale called Aster pendulus. It was cultivated by an English botanist named Philip Miller by 1758.  Done Eewilson (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't mention conditions it'd like in the Gardening section....
    • Oh, right...-E Eewilson (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Growing conditions in for everybody who has them available, including the main species (with propagation info) in the first paragraph of Gardening.  Done Eewilson (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Okay, made some changes - see above. Do you think that using this page from inat would be an acceptable "Similar Species" reference? https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/122249-Symphyotrichum-lateriflorum - click on Similar Species tab. Don't know that I could Wayback it for an archive, though. —Eewilson (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They don't say how they can be distinguished though Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
right Eewilson (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Think I could do a table here? –Eewilson (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*@Casliber: Temporarily commented out the Similar species subsection while I work on sources. —Eewilson (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck. FWIW, I think giving it a whirl at GAN is worthwhile now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment[edit]

This article is smock full of interesting information. Good work! Still, I would like to voice a minor complaint.

A sentence in the intro says:

As composite flowers, each flower head has many tiny florets put together into what appear as one, as do all plants in the family Asteraceae.

There is a rule that the intro should contain some of the info in the other parts of the article. In other words, it should not contain info that is not also somewhere else. This info is not in the paragraph about the flowers.

On the other hand, we should try to not write the same things in many articles. This sentence says it is true for all species in Asteraceae. That's a lot of articles. Say I copied this sentence to all of those. Would that be OK?

I think it should be removed.

The phrase As composite flowers, adds no information about the world.

Each flower head has many tiny florets put together into what appear as one. Would serve as a good description of what composite flower (Compositeae) means. Maybe there is an ambition to teach the expression composite flower. But that is not the task of this article.

--Ettrig (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ettrig: You are absolutely right! Thank you for reading the article, for your thoughtful comments, and I will remove the phrase accordingly. —Eewilson (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice[edit]

Very nice, Eewilson. I haven't been contributing, but I have been watching. I don't know how Good Article works but this probably qualifies now. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought - maybe @Choess: would be happy to review this for GAN Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Invasive Spices! --Eewilson (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Choess: What do you say? Would you do this GAN review? --Eewilson (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a little time, but yes. Choess (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Choess: Thank you! --Eewilson (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Symphyotrichum lateriflorum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dracophyllum (talk · contribs) 11:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Hi all, saw that this had been sitting as a GAN since January and so decided to step in. Note that I'm not a super experienced editor (See user page for details) but do have some knowledge in the subject of plants having written many articles on them. This will also be my first GA Review so please tell me if I'm doing something wrong. Given that I am quite busy at the moment I probably won't get to this for around a week or so.

Thanks Dracophyllum 11:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you, @Dracophyllum:! I was reading the article after 2 months and saw a couple of typos, so I will correct them. I'm busy this week as well, so the timing is fine. I try to be very responsive. Eewilson (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. @Eewilson: Images have mostly the correct licences but the link for the range map source should be https://plants.usda.gov/home/plantProfile?symbol=SYLA4, the CC for Symphyotrichum lateriflorum (15366184652) cropped.jpg should be CC-BY-2.0, Aster lateriflorus Lady in Black 1zz.jpg no longer exists on the web since zipcodezoo was taken down. If you can find an archive that would be good but otherwise it doesn't matter (I think). Thanks, Dracophyllum 01:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dracophyllum: Thanks for the comments! The link for the USDA PLANTS Database are automatically added through the PLANTS template, which is what I'm using for the source citation. I checked the link it generates and the link you provided, and they both lead to what looks like a recently-introduced format change, and the page, although the address in the URL bar is different, looks the same. So I don't know that I want to stop using the PLANTS template and use the Cite template, but I can if you think I should. It might be more appropriate for the PLANTS template URL to be changed by someone who maintains templates.
License for Symphyotrichum lateriflorum (15366184652) cropped.jpg corrected to CC-BY-2.0.
I can't find an archive on archive.org for the 'Lady in Black' image Aster lateriflorus Lady in Black 1zz.jpg. The user page for the uploader says he is deceased. I changed the image for the cultivar to one with the original on Flickr which is still up and has the appropriate license, and which is already on Commons (File:134-49_Aster_lateriflorus_var._horizontalis_'Lady_in_Black'.jpg). I don't know what the Commons policy is in a case like this since the license can no longer be verified nor the uploader (and presumably photographer) can no longer be contacted. Thanks! —Eewilson (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson: For me the old link just redirects to https://plants.usda.gov/home and the new link goes to the right page. I'm not sure what the policy for the "Lady in Black" is, but using the flickr one is definitely better. Dracophyllum 23:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: Regarding the PLANTS database link in the citation template PLANTS, should one of us just bring it up on the Plants Project page? Regarding the image: I changed it to the Flickr one. Let me know what else you see and I'll respond as soon as I can. Thanks! —Eewilson (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson Can't you just use a normal citation in visual editor using the better link? Dracophyllum 01:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: Oh sure! No problem. I'll get on that tonight. (I don't use visual editor - just the source code editor. I have a programming background.) —Eewilson (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: I made the update to the plants.usda.gov citation now using Cite web. —Eewilson (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson Excellent, just one last thing on this - could you change the link on the range photo to the new one as well. Thanks, Dracophyllum 02:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: That link is now corrected. I also checked some (not all) urls in the References and found a few dead links, so I marked them dead instead of live so they will use the archive.org link I made at the time. —Eewilson (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. @Eewilson: (Subtitles)

1. The main image-related issue in this article is with regards to MOS:CAPSUCCINCT. You don't need to include information in pictures which is already described in the text and captions shouldn't be several lines long. For example, the caption:
"Microscopic photo of the involucre of a flower head of S. lateriflorum plant showing phyllary detail. The green zone of each phyllary is shaped like a lens. The inner phyllaries are much longer and linear-shaped than the outer ones, and visible on the edges of each phyllary are white-looking translucent margins."
Could be shortened to just:
"Microscopic photo of the involucre of a flower head of S. lateriflorum, showing phyllary detail.
Since most of the information regarding the involucre is already in the body. Also, you don't need to put the licensing of the image, since they can see that when they click into it.
Images whose captions need shortening:
Calico aster 29 September 2020 - 01.jpg
Symphyotrichum lateriflorum 25179771.jpg
Symphyotrichum lateriflorum 25179760.jpg
Symphyotrichum lateriflorum 25179708.jpg
INat-51031397 Symphyotrichum lateriflorum disc florets macro.jpg
LinnaeusSpPl1753Description.png
There may be others that need shortening too. I'm unsure about the roots - is that level of detail needed? Maybe, since it's not in the body? But in that case you should just put it in the body if you have anything on it. It's also possible that they fit into this line in the MOS: "Galleries may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." But I'm not sure. Also, don't forget that images need to be on the right hand side of the page when possible and avoid MOS:SANDWICH. Thanks! Dracophyllum 06:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: Okay, I'll take a look at these, but it will likely be after the weekend. Just a note about MOS:SANDWICH, I had tested the page on multiple browser window widths and mobile devices, with several font sizes, and didn't find any significant sandwiching issues. I kept that in mind when placing the images and before nominating for GA, but MOS:SANDWICH is not in and of itself a requirement for GA.
Regarding MOS:CAPSUCCINCT, I'll take a look at that again. Are you looking at the length of the captions, as you said, "Images whose captions need shortening..."? The MOS reads:
Succinctness is using no superfluous or needless words. It is not the same as brevity, which is using a relatively small number of words.
So, changing them just to be shorter may be out of the scope of MOS:CAPSUCCINCT.
You write, "Also, you don't need to put the licensing of the image, since they can see that when they click into it." Which image(s) on this one?
Can you refer me to the part in the MOS where you quote about galleries? Not sure if this is a GA requirement.
You had asked me to provide feedback since this is your first review. A Good Article is not a Featured Article, nor is it intended to be a perfect article. It only needs to meet the GA Criteria. This article goes beyond that, but it's not perfect, I'm sure, and doesn't have to be that in order to get to GA.
Additionally, I'm rethinking whether TEMPLATE:PLANTS for the citation should be put back. You had mentioned that when you clicked on the link in the citation, it took you to the home page? Maybe go to the page for TEMPLATE:PLANTS and see if that happens for you for the examples as well. It does not for me. And if the base of the links that are built using the template needs to be changed, that should be done at the template level, which is beyond the scope of the GA review.
Thanks!! —Eewilson (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson: Thanks for the feedback, I actually never looked at the citation since I was only focusing on the link in the commons image which did take you to the home page. The ones on template:plants take me to the plant pages so it's possible the only culprit was the link on the commons image - sorry. You mention on LinnaeusSpPl1753Description.png that it is "Public domain on Biodiversity Heritage Library. Latin," which probable (?) isn't necessary. I take your point on sandwiching, but you could argue that repeating the features of the involucre in the caption is within the scope of MOS:CAPSUCCINCT, because "More than three lines of text in a caption may be distracting; instead, further information can be provided in the article body." Although it's totally up to discussion if you feel it should be kept. Galleries also aren't in the criteria - you're right - so forget that. Thanks Dracophyllum 08:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: Great! I'll take a look at those captions within the next few days, possibly next week because I have an out of town visitor right now.
I'll revert the citation change for the PLANTS database.
Ah, yes. The licensing on the image for the Linnaeus protologue. Gotcha there. I'll remove that sentence about the licensing.
You had asked if that level of detail about the roots is necessary and I forgot to touch on that. I went back and forth regarding that. Because the primary identifying feature in the famiy Asteraceae is the phyllaries/involucres, I've found that it's not so easy to find information on roots, at least for Symphyotrichum species. Basically, for Symphyotrichum lateriflorum, it's a caudex sometimes with short rhizomes. Well, I didn't want to just say that. So, I thought for thoroughness, using illustrations of various root systems for this species might be helpful. I tried just having the images in standard format, using a table, using a bulleted list with the images, and using a gallery, and decided the gallery worked the best. I'll look at the captions and see what can be worked into the text instead.
Thank you! —Eewilson (talk) 08:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: Captions have been adjusted for succinctness. I have placed the detailed caption information in the Alt fields for the images as well as on the actual image caption in Commons. Hopefully, this will take care of the issues and let us move on, but if you see anything I forgot about with them, please let me know. —Eewilson (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


3. @Eewilson: a) The article is broad in its coverage and has the main aspects needed for a plant article: Description, Etymology, Taxonomy, Distribution and Habitat, Ecology, Uses, and Ethnobotany

b) At 41,000 Characters it has around 41kB of readable prose which is acceptable under WP:SIZERULE and doesn't require division. The level of detail in the description section roughly matches another GA Hypericum sechmenii as well as Asplenium bradleyi, though plant GA's differ in their length in this section. Possibly the varieties section in Taxonomy is too detailed but I'm not sure - thoughts? Dracophyllum 01:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dracophyllum: When I was getting a pre-GA review by Casliber, they said on the Talk page, "...annoying having so many damn varieties but there you go." I thought about another page for infraspecies, but I don't think they are notable enough for that, and because we generally don't do that with plants. —Eewilson (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did the GA review for Hypericum sechmenii. It's a relatively newly-discovered species and little is available on it which explains the article's length. Symphyotrichum lateriflorum has been a confusing species to botanists for centuries, leading to a ridiculous number of names and varieties which may or may not be actual varieties, but because they are still accepted by some, I feel we need to cover them. If you have some ideas of what could be removed, let me know. —Eewilson (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson Yeah they probably should all be included, passed this section. Dracophyllum 02:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dracophyllum: I just thought I'd jump in and again say thank you for doing this review! I know it's a big article and there is a lot of information. —Eewilson (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4. @Eewilson: (Reliable sources)

So most of your sources are of excellent quality but are few aren't. This is up to discussion but you probably shouldn't cite nursery websites because that breaks WP:SELFPUB. Dracophyllum 10:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dracophyllum: Okay, I'll have a look and see what can be done. —Eewilson (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dracophyllum: I'm going to remove the non-English language vernacular names (Casliber thought they may be questionable), which will eliminate some selfpub references. Still looking. —Eewilson (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dracophyllum: Okay, I have done quite a bit to eliminate the nursery website self-published sources, but not all have been removed. It is a big chunk of cultivar information. For some, I just removed the information, which may have been extraneous anyway. Here is a link (if it helps) to show the comparison of how it was about 24 hours ago with now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Symphyotrichum_lateriflorum&type=revision&diff=1026751352&oldid=1026557187

—Eewilson (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson
  • Museums are reputable, though "Crondon Museum" is just a blog it seems. (https://frankwmcarr.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/site-review-cronodon-com/). Much better would be to use the sources listed at the bottom if you can find them somewhere on the internet: Cummins, C., Seale, M., Macente, A. et al. A separated vortex ring underlies the flight of the dandelion. Nature 562: 414–418 (2018) doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0604-2. Desrochers, A. M., Bain, J. F. and Warwick, S. I. 1988. The Biology of Canadian weeds. 89. Carduus nutans L. and Carduus acanthoides L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 68: 1053-1068. Sheldon, J. C. and Burrows, F.M. 1973. The dispersal effectiveness of the achene-pappus units of selected compositae in steady winds with convection. New Phytol. 72: 665-675.
  • The problem, it seems, with information on nurseries is of course WP:SPS, but also that usually the only information of the cultivars is that listed on the shop website. Perhaps we should start a section on the WP:PLANTS talk page?
  • TuinSeizoen is probs a little more reputable since it's a magazine - though still not the best ofc
    • Missouri Botanical Garden: Good
    • Chicago Botanic Garden: Good
    • Native Plant Trust: Pretty Good
    • North Carolina Native Plant Society: Bad - Written by a society so basically just a blog - check the Links section maybe.
    • (https://plants.ces.ncsu.edu/plants/symphyotrichum-lateriflorum/ seems like a good source)
    • Illinois Wildflowers: Probs Bad - blog but written by potentially an expert (?), though I'm not sure.
    • Minnesota Wildflowers: Trickier - sponsered by a botanical society and a gov organisation, would use maybe sparingly.
    • Royal Horticultural Plant Society Plant Finder - Technically it's just a blog but this society is a pretty big deal so I'm probably gonna give it a pass.
  • John C. Semple's website fits perfectly into WP:SPS and can be used. That's all for now Dracophyllum 12:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dracophyllum:

  • I'm going to remove 'White Lovely' because information on it is not locatable anyplace but Digging Dog Nursery and two blogs that reference Digging Dog Nursery.
  • I will remove references to details about 'Lovely' and just keep that it is in the RHS Plant Finder.
  • Looking at alternatives or answers for the others in question...

—Eewilson (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the rest of the questionable sources, I took the easier way out and removed them when they were duplicates, or in one or two cases, removed the information. I think I've covered all that you were questioning. Please let me know if I missed any.

—Eewilson (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson
Citations looking much better,
1) Curious as to the source of the data on Nature serve. They claim it is updated by "hundreds of natural heritage program scientists and other collaborators," but this seems a vague - wondering whether you think it's a good source?
@Dracophyllum: We use it as an option in the Taxobox for conservation information. I didn't question its quality or reliability, so my opinion is that it's a good source for conservation status, which is what I'm using it for. I wonder why you question it? —Eewilson (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2) gracillariidae.net seems ok sponsored by a gov thing - might be actually kinda better than using the individual refs due to WP:PRIMARY.
3) Prairie moon nursery is still used and should probably (?) be removed - I am sure that information can be found in a book - Have a look at some of these books/things: https://archive.org/search.php?query=%22Symphyotrichum%20lateriflorum%22&sin=TXT
@Dracophyllum: I have both of Picton's books, and only the info on propagation by division is in one of them for the species. I'll check other references for info on seed sowing and gardening. I personally trust Prairie Moon Nursery's growing information, but that's not good enough. —Eewilson (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4) I'm gonna let Perenniculum slide for GA since it's written by a horticultural expert.
5) Otherwise your citations are great and after this I can move on to checking for OR.
Dracophyllum 03:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: Okay, I eliminated the nursery source and replaced with a book from 2008. Citations should be all done now (I hope)! —Eewilson (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, good work @Eewilson! Dracophyllum 04:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5. OR / Original Research

@Eewilson:

This next section (OR) will take a while and I'm gonna have to take you up on your offer to give me access to the refs. Best would be if you could send them to me on my Wikipedia email. :) Dracophyllum 04:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dracophyllum: I'll get on that! Some may come tonight (it's night here), and some tomorrow. —Eewilson (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson Cool, for now I'll check the ones I can access - which is like 90%. Dracophyllum 04:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson Did you get my email? Dracophyllum 05:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: I did and I replied. —Eewilson (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson:

  • Name
  • Could you rephrase the specific epithet part to be less similar to the source?
@Dracophyllum: Tried - please check.
  • I would suggest renaming this section to Etymology, though it doesn't really matter
@Dracophyllum: I used Name because it's more about the common name, even though I threw in the etymology part. Someone will probably come along and change it to Etymology at some point :). Like you say - it doesn't really matter.
@Dracophyllum: Fifth paragraph, second column, along with the title of that section "Michaelmas Daisies at Long Ditton," are what I am using to provide a source that the species (in this document, A. diffusus horizontalis) can be called a Michaelmas Daisy. I also had been using it for a small passage about the Michaelmas Daisies in 1898 and how they were called starworts, but decided it was extraneous information. This came from the first paragraph on that source page under the same heading. See revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Symphyotrichum_lateriflorum&oldid=1026640454.
  • Gonna trust you on the latin bit because I can see the relevant words poking out
  • Can you put in a citation comfirming the synonymity of the other plants in Hortus Kewensis?
@Dracophyllum: Those will be covered in the Taxonomy section... hmm. I thought about that and wasn't sure I wanted to go into that here because it's very involved - I mean if I understand what you are saying. I guess a citation from COL showing synonyms would do it. I'll try that. Will also use individual page numbers for the two names from Hort Kew and add the Latin names.

Dracophyllum 05:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made and see notes above. —Eewilson (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson:

@Dracophyllum:
  • Description (Sorry for the wait) OR CHECKING IN PROGRESS
  • It's fine! See my comments in-line here... —Eewilson (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where in the first 2 sources does it say its is herbaceous? Otherwise good for OR.
  • I would consider it as something that's understood, not disputed, doesn't need citation... really falls into that category. —Eewilson (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I would be careful with this idea - there must be one source that says it is herbaceous?

Dracophyllum 11:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. I'll see what I can find. All in the genus are herbaceous. —Eewilson (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: Okay, I think I got that taken care of. Do a diff to see if you wish. I think all that's left is your final word on the conversions (below). —Eewilson (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where in cit 18 does it say its dark and sometimes flexable?
  • Well, I don't know! I couldn't find it either, so I took it out. —Eewilson (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...

  • MOS Checking
  • Link herbaceous
  • It's linked in the summary. Do you want it linked a second time in the description? —Eewilson (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Usually no, but there are no other links here so might as well. Dracophyllum 10:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay —Eewilson (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose has good grammar and spelling and reads fine for someone new to the subject
  • Link "pubescent" and "hirsute"
  • Done for "pubescent." "Hirsute" redirects to Hirsutism. I'm not so sure about linking it there. I could just put "very hairy" in parentheses? —Eewilson (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haha yeah that would be better Dracophyllum 10:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Variety tenuipes (Though it probably doesn't matter, it just sounded a little weird. Dracophyllum 10:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the abbreviations needed in habitat?
  • Hmm... I suppose teaching the abbrev can be out of scope of the article, although the abbreviations are seen sort of everywhere, so I don't know. —Eewilson (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you reword this? Symphyotrichum lateriflorum is considered a weed species in Canada and the United States, but, say Chmielewski and Semple, "probably the least weedy of the weedy aster species in Canada." Sounds off.
  • I can make it two sentences without the "but, say." —Eewilson (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that I don't know who either of them are Dracophyllum 10:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: OH! Okay, how about "Canadian botanists Jerry G. Chmielewski and John C. Semple"? —Eewilson (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better Dracophyllum 19:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "obligate (biologically required) outbreeder" Links
  • Looked and looked before and there aren't any definitions. Nothing in Wikipedia for this unless my (what felt like) exhaustive search led me blind. —Eewilson (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough Dracophyllum 11:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The five (5) , removed (5)
  • In the Flowers, Involucres and phyllaries, and Florets sections you need to use the convert template.
  • Can you be more specific? Do you mean convert all metric to imperial, or always use convert when converting instead of cvt? Or don't do any manual conversions? —Eewilson (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you have already is fine, just use the convert template on the X mm bits - it just makes it easier sometimes. Dracophyllum 11:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I was thinking that coverting tiny mm measurements to imperial was useless, and I'm an American. :) But I can take a look. —Eewilson (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how converting the tiny measurements would add value to the article, unless I can do them in fractions instead of decimal points. Isn't there a way to do that using the convert template? Do you know? —Eewilson (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson Yes, see Help:Convert#Fractions: "An output can be expressed with a fraction using |frac=N where N is the denominator. For example, |frac=8 rounds the output to the nearest eighth." There are some examples there :) Dracophyllum 23:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: Excellent!! Now that will add value! :) I'll get right on it. —Eewilson (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: All metric-to-imperial conversions added or changed to fractions for non-whole imperial unit numbers. I hope this does it! —Eewilson (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complies with MOS as far as I can tell

All I need to do now is check for OR and then you should pass :) Dracophyllum 10:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

—Eewilson (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson: @Dracophyllum: Comments and questions in bold

  • Checking for OR and other stuff...
  • Can you change the caption on Symphyotrichum lateriflorum 4a.jpg to "... on a juvenile plant" Done
  • Description is clean of OR checkY Thank you
  • In the history section can you change "and in the A. miser," to and in the A. miser section," or something similar? Done
  • In the Infraspecies section you add a [m] as if you are correcting a typo, but the source doesn't contain a typo. Unless you are moving the "M" to an "m" - is that necessary? It is changing it from uppercase to lowercase
  • In the Infraspecies section you write: "by one or more of" - why do you do this instead of just the relevant sources? On this one, I think I understand what you are asking. It depends on which infraspecies it is as to which source accepts it. I could put them in each subsection, if that is better, but each subsection has the actual source citations. Let me know.
I think it would be fine if you put a word like following in to make it: "Although the following infraspecies are no longer accepted varieties according to COL, they were accepted as of May 2021 by one or more of..." Dracophyllum 01:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotcha. Okay, done (as soon as I save). —Eewilson (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph is worded as if it is below the variaties - could you change this? Do you mean the paragraph you referenced in the comment just before this one?
See my comment above, if you add the word following it would be better. Dracophyllum 01:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Variety angustifolium the sentence on the etymology could be better worded and needs a citation. Do you mean better word this sentence: Latin angustus means narrow and folium means foliage or leaves.?
  • In Variety angustifolium I don't think you should bold the common names because they don't refer to the article subject as a whole. Done
  • In Variety angustifolium shouldn't you put the special character "ò" in the: new species he named "Aster agrostifolius which..." bit? He put that in his protologue, but it's not maintained within today's literature that I've seen (see IPNI, for example), so I don't really think so...
Alright fair enough. Dracophyllum 01:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again citation needed for the latin bits Are you sure? :) I link it to Wiktionary (as do I the two in the paragraph above). Is it acceptable to cite Wiktionary as the source, or isn't linking to it enough? Or should I just take those sentences out? Are they necessary?
Hmm maybe, maybe not. Here are some good sources to use though
They do look like good sources, but I don't have copies of either. I suppose I could check my local library, but if you think it's acceptable as is, I'd rather just move on... if that's okay with you. —Eewilson (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok I agree it's a small thing I can move on from it :) Dracophyllum 05:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Variety angustifolium Can you put Wiegand's full name at first to remove any confusion? Done
  • In Variety hirsuticaule and in [2]https://www.ipni.org/n/311661-2/ where does it mention the common names? Well, it looks like I may have moved them and left out the citation for those. I'll find and add.
  • In Variety hirsuticaule latin name a citation needed Same question here about Wiktionary
  • In Variety hirsuticaule I could be wrong but that doesn't look like real german - have you consulted a table like the one on this document? [3]https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/img_auth.php/c/ca/German_Gothic_Handwriting_Guide.pdf Hmmm. I'll take a look at this. I don't know German.
  • There were several errors in the German. I used the Guide PDF and corrected them. Google Translate confirmed the translation into English as the same in idea (with slightly different wording) as what I was given from the Wikipedian who helped. I think it's good now. —Eewilson (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Almost right but the german word for plants is Pflanzen but Bflanzen :) Dracophyllum 05:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would make sense! :) I'll fix it. —Eewilson (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Variety horizontale could you be clearer than "since the time of Linnaeus," Done - changed it to since the mid-1700s or I could put mid-18th Century if you think that would be better.
  • Got up to (but haven't done) Variety spatelliforme. Up to this point it looks good checkY Dracophyllum 09:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

—Eewilson (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think should be everything up to this point. —Eewilson (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, now to move on :) checkY Dracophyllum 05:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continued OR checking and other pointless nitpicking. @Eewilson:

  • Rest of taxonomy is clean checkY
  • In the distribution of S. lateriflorum var. hirsuticaule you say that "United States distribution data cannot be found," but you describe its US distribution just before. Do you mean data from some gov source or specific database?
  • :) Do you mean Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick? These are in Canada. Close, but not the U.S. —Eewilson (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
oh haha I guess my american geography is not very good. Disregard my comment. :) Dracophyllum 07:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
:) My geography of other continents is lacking, so no worries! —Eewilson (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont forget you can shorten the binomial name down to S. lateriflorum if you want.
  • You should remove "Studies have shown" in the Reproduction section and change it to: "a 2001 study by blahblah" because the latter phrase is vague and should be avoided. Just removed Studies have shown. Other wise up untill this point looks good checkY
  • On citation 125 the archive links to a different page
oops... I'll fix —Eewilson (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything else looks good. I have to say well done on such an amazing job for such a large topic. I apologise for this long review and thank you for your patience and understanding with my mistakes. Will pass after these things are corrected Happy editing:) Dracophyllum 07:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) —Eewilson (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work will promote now

Minor edits[edit]

@Neils51: Thank you for the spelling correction of development in the citation in the article Symphyotrichum lateriflorum, as well as the removal of the extra space after the Southern Methodist University Wikilink. This article is currently under review for GA by @Dracophyllum: and was nominated by me. A GA review of an article this detailed is quite a bit of work, and every change can add to that work, so my rule of thumb is before I make any changes to an article, see if it is under review for GA or FA by looking on the Talk Page. The removal of the extra spaces in the templates and for the images really wasn't necessary but didn't cause problems. However, you did make some formatting changes that caused a few problems and that need to be reverted back. There were some paragraph breaks that were intentional in the Cultivars section. I find using Preview helpful before I Publish changes. Take a look under the Cultivars section and see how the 'Coombe Fishacre' and 'Lady in Black' formatting is now changed and compare to how it was in the previous version. —Eewilson (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eewilson I have undone my edit and completed the spelling fix only. The AWB cosmetic fixes are a one-size-fits-all approach and are generally OK, however do need to be reviewed, so I can appreciate that if you have spent time creating text alignment having it undone in such a manner can be frustrating. There is no way I would have time to review talk pages however what I would suggest for such editing situations is that the {{in use}} tag is placed on such articles. When AWB sees this tag it makes a recommendation to skip the article, which I always do, though of course I can’t speak for other editors. If the ‘offending’ item is later still present then it can be picked up in another edit cycle. - Neils51 (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Neils51! —Eewilson (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Calico aster flower heads
Calico aster flower heads

Created/expanded by Eewilson (talk). Self-nominated at 15:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Adding second Alt:

—Eewilson (talk) 03:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was a pleasure to review this article. The photographs alone were worth it. Excellent work, Eewilson. The article was nominated the day after it was recognized as a good article, so it counts as new. At c. 50,000 characters, its length is more than sufficient. The article is neutral and sources are properly cited throughout. I do not have access to all the sources so I cannot confirm that there is absolutely no close paraphrasing, but judging by the style (which is much less jargonistic than one would find in such specialized publications) I think close paraphrasing is very unlikely. All the hooks are short enough and cited in the article, but only ALT2 could count as "interesting to a broad audience". The image is free, used in the article (infobox), and looks lovely at small size. We rarely see flowers in DYK, so I recommend it. Surtsicna (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question/suggestion[edit]

I wonder if the prose would look better with the plant morphology terms in piped links instead of parentheses. (There are over five hundred parentheses in the article.) So, for example, instead of

Leaves have fine, net-like (reticulate) veins and little to no hair (glabrous) except for the key characteristic of hair on the back (abaxial) main leaf vein (midrib).

we might have

Leaves have fine, net-like veins and little to no hair except for the key characteristic of hair on the back main leaf vein.

One thing that comes to mind is MOS:SEAOFBLUE, which advises us to avoid placing links next to each other. But altogether, the version without the parentheses seems more legible to me. Surtsicna (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: Well, it is something to think about. I do think avoiding a Sea of Blue is important (perhaps my motivation for using parentheses, or perhaps I just think in parentheses?). I also was keeping MOS:LINKCLARITY in mind. For a botanical article, I think there needs to be a balance between not talking down to a botanical-level reader and avoiding obscure text for the non-botanical-level reader. Hence, the use of the botanical term and its very short definition. Reticulate = net-like. I've started doing an alternative format. See what you think of this from Symphyotrichum novae-angliae#Description which I'm tackling next for GA nomination. This is as I have it currenty:

The stems, leaves, and phyllaries are covered with hairs (called trichomes) that are actually tiny glands on tiny stalks (called stipitate-glandular, or covered with stipitate glands or stalked glands).

An alternative to this could be the following:

The stems, leaves, and phyllaries are covered with hairs called trichomes that are actually tiny glands on tiny stalks called stipitate-glands.

Italicizing the introduced term follows MOS:WORDSASWORDS. The alternative removes the parentheses and the over-explaining of stipitate glands.
I hesitate to dive into changing this in Symphyotrichum lateriflorum right now since it just got approved GA last mont, but perhaps when I look at it for FA maybe? What do you think of the example I gave? —Eewilson (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or even better would be as follows:

The stems, leaves, and phyllaries are covered with tiny glands on tiny stalks called stipitate-glands.

The hairs part isn't even necessary. —Eewilson (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Trichome article talks about glandular hairs, which are what these are, but doesn't actually have the term stipitate. It should, so that could be (and should be) augmented, which I can do. —Eewilson (talk) 16:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The balance you mention is certainly achieved by the use of parentheses. I was wondering about the italics too, but I suspected (correctly) that you had a good reason for them. My concern is that they make it less clear what is English (even if ultimately from Latin) and what is Latin. MOS:LINKCLARITY seems to suggest alternatives in such cases. Surtsicna (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: Yes, italics are an issue, too, for that very reason. MOS:WAW says to use double quotes instead. So I'll change those. Thank you! You've been thoughtful again with very constructive comments and good ideas! Always great to see others want to make Wikipedia better. Feel free to suggest as much as you want. The more eyes the better! —Eewilson (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I was surprised to see that nobody had reviewed the article for a month. It is just so inviting. I love how you dedicated a section to the horticultural use of the species. That is rare, and I suspect deliberately so. I will take a look at the congener article too! Surtsicna (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: Thank you again! It was nearly five months before someone picked it up for GA review. I figured it was probably because it is such a long and detailed article. Any review is a commitment, but this one extra so.
The WikiProject Plants has a Taxon Template that outlines what should go in a taxon article and in what order. I find it incredibly helpful.
I tackled this species first because I fell in love with it. It grows everywhere around here, including in my yard and at the edge of the woods behind my house. I had to know all I could about it and found the Wikipedia article was an itty-bitty Start-class article fresh out of Stub and told me virtually nothing. That was last September, so here we are. :) —Eewilson (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eewilson, I just realized that medicine articles is where I picked up the idea to pipe scientific jargon. See Leprosy, for example. Food for thought, if nothing else. Surtsicna (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: I just learned tons about leprosy — more than I ever wanted to know. :) It is a smooth read because of the way it handles technical terms. You are right. Would you like to approach some more of this article, maybe make the suggestions on this talk page before implementing them since it is GA? Two heads are definitely better than one. —Eewilson (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Preparing to place this as a Featured Article Candidate (FAC)[edit]

I am planning to place this article as a Featured Article Candidate (FAC) in two weeks (about 24 September 2021) and would like to ask for any comments and any issues regarding this article that may need to be addressed. The article was approved GA in June. Please leave your comments here, and thank you in advance. —Eewilson (talk) 01:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Symphyotrichum_lateriflorum&oldid=1208013990"