Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Xerochrysum bracteatum/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 GrahamColm 23:04, 24 March 2012 [1].

Xerochrysum bracteatum[edit]

Xerochrysum bracteatum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I planted some of these in my garden and they looked great, so I did some reading...and buffed the article. am nominating this for featured article because I don't think I can better it. It got a thorough .going-over by Choess (talk · contribs).....have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • What kind of source is FN 1?
  • a book, now formatted and linked to original 206 year old description Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should identify language for foreign-language sources
  • Fn 16: formatting
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books, and if so when you include state/country names
  • FN 30: punctuation

Nice article. A few comments

Lead
  • Opening sentence: the "'native to Australia" bit seems like it should have a verb in it.
  • Second sentence: "up to a metre high", or tall?
  • I have used them interchangeably, but agree tall is less ambiguous. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fifth sentence: "larvae of leopidoptera" or lepidopterans? Seems like since the adjectival form is in common(ish) use, it probably should be used here.
  • Second para, third sentence: sold in seed packs "in many countries" - unless there's some sense of what countries (e.g., "many countries in Europe") the statement conveys very little information. In addition, the density of "many" is two high (twice in that sentence, once near the start of the next). I woiul just say "Many of these are still sold in seed packs" and leave it at that
  • Fourth sentence: "and have become popular garden plants" or "which have"? There's a subtle difference in meaning, and I suspect you're going for the latter.
  • Yes, it is the perennials that are more popular here - "and" reads alright to me but agree "which" is less ambiguous. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy
  • Ventenat "first described" or "described"? Yes, it was the first description of the species, but it sounds like it was Ventenat's first description, which he later followed up with his second and third.
  • Is "bract" a common enough word that it will be understood with just a link? I think a picture showing the bracts would be useful - if one isn't readily available, what about trimming a detail out of the image in the infobox? There are a couple dry heads in there with visible bracts. A nice little explanation in the image caption would solve the problem without having to engage in a long discussion in the text. Given that the species is named for its bracts, it seems like the kind of thing a reader might be curious about. Quite frankly, I know what bracs are, and I found myself looking for an image here that shows the bracts, rather than the flowers.
  • I've switched images and will crop the closep and draw some lines on it tonight to illustrate features Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Andrews reclassified it as Helichrysum bracteatum" - APNI cites "Andrews, H.C. (1805), The Botanist's Repository for New, and Rare Plants 6: sub. t. 428" which I believe to be this in which he justifies the placement of Elychrisum staehelina in Elychrysum (as he spelt it), and later says "X. bracteatum (Plate 375), now Elychrisum bracteatum". Back there, he justifies moving the species out of Xeranthemum based on the fact that "the structure of the receptable...being of great consequence in the formation and distribution of genera". So is this a reclassification? To me, "reclassification" suggests a much greater change in placement. He moves it from one genus to another, he does appear to leave it in the same class and order. There's something about "reclassify" that feels just a tad too major for this transfer...but this is just a very minor nit to pick (and I may be wrong). You might want to consider saying that Andrews transferred it to the genus Helichrysum based on the morphology of its receptable. If not, that's fine - don't consider this an outstanding objection.
  • yeah, I like that. I have a more inclusive notion of "reclassified" to include minor rejigs of binomials but I think "transferred" is more exacting here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Henckel and Persoon's descriptions - these are based on different types, presumably. Is that worth mentioning, or would that be obvious to the average reader?
  • I can't read what Persoon's type is, but was musing that maybe as they are names coined and forgotten over 200 years ago, might not be worth dwelling on (??). Henckel reports something about the very bold Baudin fetching that specimen, which is sorta cool.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 5: "Anderberg and Haegi placed the members that are known as strawflowers of the large genus Helichrysum" - sentence structure seems odd...perhaps "the members of the large genus Helichrysum" that are known as strawflowers"?
  • The gist is that within the large genus Helichrysum (which was a wastebasket taxon), there were several species known as strawflowers which were moved to a new genus Bracteantha (not that the members were all known as strawflowers....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I got that. It just seemed like putting "that are known as strawflowers" before "of the large genus Helichrysum" made the sentence awkward. Hadn't thought that my suggestion changes the meaning. Guettarda (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about something like "...when A&H split the large genus Helichrysum, and placed {the species commonly known as strawflowers/placed the strawflowers} into a new genus Bracteantha". And, btw, if you're interested in shaving a few words off a long sentence, "given the name" could be replaced by "renamed" or simply "named". Guettarda (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll have a think - they didn't split the genus in 2001 but more hived off some species. Many others remained in hte genus pending further review - Coronidium elatum was not transferred until 2008. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 8: "Bracteantha appearing in literature and horticulture" - "in horticulture" or "in the horticultural trade"?
  • Sentence 9: "A 2002 molecular study of the tribe Gnaphalieae" - no prior mention that the species has been placed in that tribe. It probably shouldn't be something the reader has to infer.
  • Yeah, have rejigged it so there is an introductory statement and explanation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 2: "The species itself is very variable and may represent several undescribed species" - can you rephrase that so it doesn't start and end with "species"?
  • Para 3: "in garden situations" or "in cultivation"?
Description
  • Sentence 1: "have a prostrate habit" - is that language too botanical?
  • Sentence 2: "when compared with" or "in comparision with" rather than "compared to"
  • Sentence 3: "The leaves are lanceolate, elliptic or oblanceolate" - might want to link to leaf shape here.
  • Sentence 5: " are occasionally multiple on the one stem" - phrasing seems a little awkward
  • Paras 2 & 3: I'm a little confused here - are you saying that the colours "petals" are actually the bracts, and not ray florets? If not, the description isn't clear enough. If so, this seems noteworthy enough to mention. And since you have some good pix of the heads, it might be nice to include a picture of an individual head here, with a caption pointing out these various features.
  • Aah, the petals refers to other plants in general, not this species - that was from the source. Reworded. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Distribution and habitat
  • "occurs in all mainland states and territories" - mighe be worth mentioning "Australia" somewhere in there, for those readers who have long since forgotten that single mention in the lead. Might it be worth mentioning that it is an endemic?
Ecology
  • So I suppose that's a "yes", these are bracts, not ray florets. Interesting. Not that I'm a composite expert by any stretch...
  • "Grasshoppers also visit" - just to be clear (since I can't access that page in Google books), grasshoppers visit the flowers? As pollinators? Or to munch on some petals...I mean bracts?
  • I can't tweak it more than this, as the source doesn't say why or what floral parts are visited Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The plant pathogen Bremia lactucae" - isn't "plant pathogen" a tad vague? Oomycete or water mold would probably be more informative. The abstract of the source also mentions B. lactucae infecting the species in the UK and Egypt. Is there some reason to only mention Italy and California?
  • Para 3, last sentence: "The root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita) attacks the roots, forming galls on the roots" - too many roots in one sentence.
Cultivation
  • Sentence 3: "which spread over Europe in the 1850s" - spread in or across Europe maybe? "Spread over Europe" makes it sound like it covered the continent, choking out all life ;)
  • Para 1, Last sentence - I've alwasy been told that you shouldn't abbreviate a genus name at the start of a sentence.
  • Para 1 in general - the sentences are a bit long and complex. Simplification would improve readability.
  • Para 2, sentence 1: "newer" probably isn't required given that the sentence is talking about the latter 20th century.
  • Sentence 4: "Many lose popularity" is vague; I think the latter part of the sentence, about the 3-year commercial lifespan, is the main point here, and you should lead with that.
  • Sentence 5: "known as Sundaze" should follow "of compact plants", not split it from "range"
  • Sentence 7: " ""Florabella Gold" is a member of the Florabella series, and won..." - unless you want to say what the "Florabella series" is, it would be better to ditch the "is" and the "and".
  • Sentence 8: "Other ranges include..." - what's a range?
  • added the adjective "commercial" - could change "range" here to "line" I suppose.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Para 3, sentence 3: "Dead-heading flowers" - "deadheading" probably needs explaining - I had no idea what that was (other than the linked meaning) for the longest while.
Cultivars
  • Better to spell out ACRA the first time it's used
  • There's a lot of white space (on my monitor, anyway) at the end of this section - might it be usedul to move the 'Strawberry Yellow' pic up a bit?

Guettarda (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comments from Jim
  • I don't think we link countries any more (also inconsistent, Australia, not Germany
  • link subalpine, cultivars, alpine?
  • These bracts are unusual... made up of dead cells, which are unusual... — change one "unusual"?
  • rem first "unusual" as (upon reading) the "unlike..." clause covers their unusualnessCasliber (talk · contribs) 17:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Color or colour? — can't have both
  • Australian Daisy Study Group — year?
No other queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from Cryptic C62. I have two main concerns. The first is that the lead does not adequately summarize all of the main sections of the article. In particular, it should mention when the plant was first described (Taxonomy), and something from Ecology. My second concern is the preponderance of one- and two-sentence paragraphs. I would prefer to see these merged, expanded, or deleted. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rejigged the sentences and added something from taxonomy in lead. The last sentence from para 1 in lead is from ecology. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, missed that sentence. Thanks for the good work! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images seem unproblematic, although it might be helpful to have a more informative response to "other versions" than "yes". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All suggestions below have been satisfactorily handled, and I think the article meets FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 14:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC) Comments by Sasata (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • no first name & link for Henckel? First names for Persoon, Anderberg, Haegi? (to be consistent with presentation of others)
  • "… of the 0.3 cm long (0.1 in) fruit." this unit is used adjectivally and thus needs a hyphen, but I'm not sure if this is true if the abbreviated form of the unit is used, and I didn't want to change to full spelling, as it would look out of place with the other abbreviated units. Will let you decide to do something about it, or not care
  • I realised it should be "0.3 cm (0.1 in) long", which makes a hyphen even trickier to slot in. I did muse on making the measurements a subordinate clause but I think that makes the English clumsier. I think as is is the path of most reader0harmoniousness..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • refs 6 , 7, 9 need accessdates
  • Ventenat, who described the species in 1803, was French; was his original material from Europe or Australia? Any chance of citing the protolog?
  • Doing some digging, it seems that Joséphine de Beauharnais (Napoleon's first wife) commissioned Ventenat to write the 1803 Jardin de Malmaison to document rare plants that were growing in the Château de Malmaison. JSTOR 4119317 quotes the original, saying the type was "Sous-Arbrisseau originaire de la Nouvelle Holland." or 'Sub-shrub from New Holland (=Australia)' I can't find Jardin de Malmaison online unfortunately (it probably would have had a nice coloured plate), but I think the previous is an interesting part of the plants history that should be mentioned in the taxonomy section. Sasata (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • lit review. A lit search of Web of Knowledge and JSTOR turned up little that wasn't already used. I found a few tidbits from a Google Books search that might be useable:
  • this source mentions "wallaby" cultivars; of these, 'orange blaze' and 'pink glow' aren't mentioned in the article. This same source also mentions some specific uses of this species (e.g. short-term plants in new plantings; use in large containers and window boxes; designing mosaics with differently coloured cultivars, etc.)
  • aha, I was looking for something like this one. I've used them like this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • this source says that the species (as one of the early synonyms, H. bracteatum) is from South Africa? Can you clarify?
  • there has been discussion that some early genetic material used in Germany in early breeding in the 19th century came from South African daisies. The other possible explanation is that the authors' main expertise is on northern hemisphere cooking herbs and hence somewhat removed from knowing the plants as well as others. I suspect aspects of the book might be considered a tertiary source too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • this source calls it the 'bracted strawflower'
  • wow! the main tidbit of that source is it being naturalised in New England (!) - the name is tricky. No other book uses it so I have no idea how widespread the name is. It is used alot on the web. Need to think about how to phrase it.Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • what do the seeds look like; how big are they? (see this)
  • dang, forgot to add - added now (daisy study grp book is national not just Sydney region, so used that as source) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • what are the dimensions of the involucre? (see this) Mentioned in this source, is the cypsela a seed? (if so, you could source seed size and shape with this). Sasata (talk) 04:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • aargh - now the involucre has a different diameter to the flowerhead :P .....so isn't clear whether the Sydney ref is restricting the meaning to bracts on the underside (i.e. not the ones at the edges, or the "wide" is (somehow) the radius...or what). I think this is pretty specialised and unless I can clarify it it murks things up a bit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cypsela is a fruit. Though any normal person would look at it and call it a seed, especially if it lacks a pappus. Like a sunflower "seed", before you remove the shell. Guettarda (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - I don't see any strikes, which is not a problem, but could the nominator confirm that all issues have been addressed? Graham Colm (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • as far as I know, everything is in order. All commenters have supported and I have either fixed queries or explained otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Graham Colm (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2012 (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/Xerochrysum_bracteatum/archive1&oldid=1144460675"