Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia cuneata/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:34, 25 January 2010 [1].

Banksia cuneata[edit]

Nominator(s): Casliber, Hesperian
Toolbox

This article had a good workout at its Good Article Nomination and I feel it is of quality equivalent to the other seven Banksia featured articles. For a rare and endangered plant, it is as comprehensive as it can possibly be (I think Hesperian and I have seen everything published as such on the plant to date) and has some nice images taken by an editor who made the trek out to where it grows (thanks Gnangarra!)... Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Am I allowed to register my '''Support''' here? I fully endorse Cas's assertion that this is as comprehensive as it can possibly be. There are some unpublished conservation reports that we haven't been able to get hold of, but in terms of published material I think we've got the lot. As for "quality equivalent to the other seven", I actually think they are getting better as we go along. Hesperian 04:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is okay as long as it is clear (which it is) that you're conominating and hence nonimpartial (mwahahahaha) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(done) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... and thanks. Eubulides (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In measurements, if you spell out the number, you need to spell out the unit of measure (doesn't mean the converse is true). Any of these changes would work in my opinion:
    • "one to four cm (0.4–1.6 in)" → "one to four centimetres (0.4–1.6 in)", or
    • "one to four cm (0.4–1.6 in)" → "1 to 4 centimetres (0.4–1.6 in)", or
    • "one to four cm (0.4–1.6 in)" → "1 to 4 cm (0.4–1.6 in)".
as well as variants such as "to" in the converted range rather than a dash.
A side issue. Personally, I don't like to see a mixture of centimetres and millimetres, but that's only a mild suggestion. But then I think the world would be a much better place if the CGPM had consigned "centi-" and all the other prefixes which are not powers of 1000 to the same fate as the "myria-", now obsolete because it wasn't one of the prefixes adopted in the International System of Units. Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose, but cm are so...convenient. Anyway, changed as suggested. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
    • Current ref 1 (Dept of the Enviroment..) needs a last accessdate
    • Please spell out abbreviations in the references (or give fuller information). I noted CALMNnews... but there may be others.
    • Current refs 23 and 24 ... please add "Australian Goverment" to make them match the formatt of the other governmental agencies.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
done the first and 23/24, but not sure about the abbreviation when it is part of a larger name - it is called CALMnews..Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the article covers the topic well and all facts are referenced, consistant with previous featured Banksia articles. noting small bias Gnangarra 00:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on image concern:

The other images (photos contributed by User:Gnangarra) are appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 14:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't traced. I downloaded the spatial data and rendered the map in a GIS. Data isn't copyrightable, no matter what the DEWHA have to say about their "maps". What is copyrightable is the design decisions taken in rendering the data into a map: i.e. the map projection, the background colour, line colour and thickness, the colour used to indicate distribution, etc. I made my own design decisions, so I own copyright in these maps. Any resemblance to the WAH images are merely that: resemblance. I don't know if the projection differs—I used geodetic; I don't know what WAH used—I used unbroken black lines throughout, whereas WAH use grey lines for non-provincial boundaries; I use a white background throughout, whereas WAH use light brown for land; we both used a bright red to indicate distribution, but this is utterly obvious, and I've used a smoother distribution boundary; I've cropped the western boundary much tighter than they have. The similarities you see are due not to the map design, which is copyrightable, but rather to the underlying spatial data, which is not copyrightable, and even that is a different version (IBRA 6.1 v IBRA 5.1) Hesperian 15:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Data might be non-copyrightable in the United States, but Australia has copyrights for databases. Substantial use of an Australian copyrighted database constitutues a copyviolation.[4] IBRA's databases are segmentised, so it seems that this map is not using an insignificant portion of its data. Since this could be one of those grey or complex areas of law, I have asked for advice at commons:Commons talk:Image casebook#Re: Maps. Jappalang (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Databases, not data. Australian law essentially recognises that database design is a creative act. I have not made "substantial use of an Australian copyrighted database." A shapefile is not a database; it is nothing like a database. What I have used here is data. A database may be copyrighted, but the data contained therein remains uncopyrightable. The distinction is fundamental. If you write a biography, you have copyright over your text, but not over the sequence of life events you are chronicling. In the same way, you can copyright the way in which you organise data in a database, but the data itself is not copyrightable. Hesperian 12:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From The Australian Copyright council on databasessee PDF for Compliations Copyright does not protect facts or information.... You do not need permission to reproduce particular facts from a compilation (such as a name, address and telephone number from a telephone directory). However, you may need permission to reproduce all or a “substantial part” of a compilation. the map is based less than a third of the overall data from IBRA on the provinces and is then combined with only about 1/130,000 of the data in FloraBase. I dont see any copyright violation in realation to this map. Gnangarra 13:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... and even if it covered the entire country, there is no way a 699×936 pixel raster image could be construed as a substantial part of a high resolution vector data set. Hesperian 13:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hesperian, the criteria is "quality, not quantity" of data used; the detailed geographical lines tend to indicate high fidelity reconstruction. Regardless, Kaldari's arguments (at Commons) seem persuasive. I would like to know how you downloaded the data though. I was unable to locate it at http://www.environment.gov.au/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp (their download interface). Could you give a rough working of how to obtain the data on the image's page (Source)? Jappalang (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think a 699×936 raster image can be used to reconstruct a high-resolution vector image without massive degradation of quality, you shouldn't be participating in this discussion.

I had no trouble finding it; just type "IBRA" into the "Search Title:" field and hit the search button. Hesperian 04:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. A very thorough treatment of the subject, well supported by photographs. Melburnian (talk) 09:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A nice article, I made these edits, please check for collateral damage. Also, I'd raise the last two subheading to full headings and dump "Uses". That heading is pointless since "Cultivation" says it's useless, and the cultural bit isn't a use in any normal sense of the word Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the help. Hmm, that "Uses" section was my bad, only added recently, because the info on its use as logo and emblem were jammed into the "Discovery and naming" section, where they definitely didn't belong. Can anyone suggest a better home for that bit? Hesperian 11:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • lead is thin, surely a couple of sentences could be used from the well-developed lifestyle and ecology section?
  • something funky is going on with the taxobox formatting
  • some image caption start with caps, some don't
  • units are given in full (metres, millimetres) and and abbreviated (cm)
  • I'm seeing some other minor defects like missing caps and misplaced punctuation... to save us both the hassle I'll just do a copyedit later today and report back here if anything is amiss.
Good point on lead. Have added a bit. thanks for the tidying. Murphy's Law has come into play with RL issues for me over past few days :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I did a copyedit, please check. In general, I think it looks pretty good, but have the following suggestions: Sasata (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedit looks good - only point is if a caption is a clause and not a phrase (i.e. lacks a verb) then it need not have an initial capital or period (which is why I was trying to make them into sentences for conformity) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone likes semicolons. I like them too, but I found their usage here bordering on excessive. In many cases they are being used to link sentences together that I though would do well individually.
My bad - remove at leisure - I am a semicolon addict :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first paragraph of "Life cycle and ecology" doesn't read like "professional prose" to me.
Yeah, it is a bit choppy. I tweaked it a little but there isn't much there to tweak. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • metres is still being spelled out while cm and km are not
(got 'em all now I think) Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • the whitespace in "Cultural references" really sticks out, but I'm afraid I don't really have a suggestion how to fix it other than fill it up with more info :)
  • the term "genetic structure" came up in the GA review. I see it's now redlinked, but that doesn't help me to understand the concept any better.
  • do the fungi of Westea or Banksiamyces like to grow on the plant?
Not as far as I know - I think they've been recovered from only a handful of species. Will look into it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • caption "The 'matchstick' appearance in late bud gives rise to the common name." maybe "gives rise to" -> "suggestive of"
Well, it was/is causative, which "suggestive of" lacks in meaning -I agree it is unusual and will muse on an alternative. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:23, 23 January 2010 (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_article_candidates/Banksia_cuneata/archive1&oldid=1046366339"