[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Adenanthos obovatus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleAdenanthos obovatus 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 December 5, 2011.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 18, 2010Good article nomineeListed
January 22, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

Web of science

[edit]

Search yielded one article:

Title: Consistent individuality in the timing and magnitude of flowering by Adenanthos obovatus (Proteaceae) Author(s): Wooller RD, Wooller AJ Source: AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY Volume: 46 Issue: 5-6 Pages: 595-608 Published: 1998 Times Cited: 0

Will check and add soon (seeing which Adenanthos are closest to GAN...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done good article. added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bradshaw et al (2007) "Ecology of the Honey possum, Tarsipes rostratus, in Scott National Park, Western Australia" contains a figure with caption "Flowering phenology of the seven major food plants of Tarsipes rostratus in Scott National Park: Banksia occidentalis, Beaufortia sparsa, Corymbia callophylla, Banksia ilicifolia, B. meisneri, Adenanthos obovatus and A. meisneri", showing this species flowering from early june to last september. We already have superior information on flower phenology, but the fact that it is one of the "seven major food plants of Tarsipes rostratus in Scott National Park" is interesting. Species seems to have been mentioned in passing in a few other Tarsipes rostratus papers, so it may be possible to pull something solid together there.
yup. added this one. you're right as there are other papers mentioned... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shearer et al (1998) "Susceptibility of Plant Species in Coastal Dune Vegetation of South-western Australia to Killing by Armillaria luteobubalina" lists this species in Table 6: "Plant species that occurred in less than three disease centres of Armillaria luteobubalina in coastal dune vegetation, and were killed with mycelial sheaths of the pathogen beneath the bark of the root collar".
 Done added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grant (1950) "The Protection of the Ovules in Flowering Plants": "The destructive habits of birds in their visits to flowers may be associated with the presence of strengthening tissues in many bird flowers... Adenanthos obovata is marked by the development of nests of sclereids in the corolla and tracheary elements of the style."
  • Bentham (1873) "Notes on the Styles of Australian Proteaceae": four sentences detailing flower anatomy and physiology, and a figure.
  • I'll have a look in some of the standard books we've been using for banksia articles; e.g. Food of Australian Birds, Australian Seeds, etc.

Hesperian 00:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


All looks good. Still fiddling round with both papers I've just added. This chapter:
Hopper, S. D., and Burbidge, A. H. (1986). Speciation of bird-pollinated plants in south-western

Australia. In ‘The Dynamic Partnership’. (Eds H. A. Ford and D. C. Paton.) pp. 20–31. (Government Printer: South Australia.)

looks good to - love to see the fulltext of that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Rejected intermedius: text and plate. Hesperian 05:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Hesperian, you wanna do the distrib map or leave it to me? Happy either way. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I have an unhappy relationship with distribution maps at the moment. In short I think the maps I create are crap, and I don't like producing crap, but I can't see my way to generating good solid svg maps that I can be proud of. Having said that, I guess I don't mind producing yet another crap map, since the article needs one. Hesperian 00:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thatd be great. I'll leave it to you and ferret out more sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

image

[edit]

The botanical illustration is Plée engrv. after Poit. according to the article on the book, hopefully that is accurate, is it worth noting here. cygnis insignis 02:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, according to Nelson's PhD thesis all three of the protologue species were figured, A. cuneata by Sauvage, and the other two by Poiteau. Hesperian 05:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hesperian 12:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the species is reported in field surveys of Phytophthora cinnamomi, listed as an 'indicator species' observed during impact and recovery. That any use? cygnis insignis 06:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    See below.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    See below
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


  • "The plant was collected and described" I appreciate it's not the first collection, but perhaps you could specify in the lead why this is significant?
ditched Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the lead perhaps be expanded a little?
rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "taxonomy" would go before description in my eyes, but I don't know if there's actually a guideline on that somewhere?
This is one of those cases where there are converging layouts. Pushing for taxonomy to go above description was mainly my idea (generally so that the description section (which is often where one wants to put photos) is then down below where the taxobox ends), and I did it in lots of bird, plant and fungus articles. Hesperian initiated most of the proteaceae articles (banksia and now adenanthos) and I have followed his lead in these. We've got some action across all bio articles in streamlining articles but has been challenging as there are so many...there are no strict guidelines as such.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sessile" Link?
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "perianth" Link?
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "obovata" So this is a synonym? Perhaps note it in the taxobox?
Good question. Ultimately I don't think it is, and that it is merely a case of altering the gender of the species name (like a latin adjective) to align with the presumptive gender of the genus. It is not listed as such elsewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • "who he" whom? I may be wrong.
either is acceptable, but I do like whom too... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this is tricky - the first definition on hte target page is fleshed out, followed by some other links. I need to read more to see which it might pertain to, as many of the target pages seem a bit narrow. The whole set of pages there might be in need of an overhaul. I am tempted to delink for the time being as "sterile" is a common enough word until we have a proper target to link to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created a new stub on sterility (physiology), defined as the inability to effect sexual reproduction in an organism or organ otherwise anatomically equipped to do so. I'm shocked we didn't already have a page on this. As Cas says, the whole set of pages there is in need of an overhaul. Hesperian 12:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "published Adenanthos intermedia" Is that a recognised use of the word "published"? I read that as "published a work called...", rather than "described a species called..."
described better, so changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A. intermedius" is another synonym that could go in the taxobox?
no, it was the name given to what is now recognised as a hybrid, so strictly speaking does not refer to this species as such. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think mention of the common names belongs in the lead- a lot of people will know it first and formost from common names (I assume).
I placed the two commonest names in lead Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "abuts" is not a word I've heard before. The OED does have abut, but it lists the main meaning as obsolete.
okay - changed to " brushes against" Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Silvereye (Zosterops lateralis) also drinks" repetition of "also"
removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Too heavy for the fine branches, their bills are too large for the tubes as well." Implies that it is the bills which are too heavy
clarifiedCasliber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Propagation is by cuttings of the current season's growth, from which it strikes readily[6] and makes fairly quick growth." I get what you're saying, but does that make sense?
yes, but adding an "afterwards" or something would help clarify. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It prefers a sunny aspect" Repetition of "prefers"
changed one prefer Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are slightly too short paragraphs throughout the article, but they're worst in the cultivation section. Any chance of them being merged?
'merged the 3 short ones there. There is a lot less info on these than banksias. I will see if I can embellish or flesh out any other bits. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cites 1 and 5 refer to the same person in different ways, and perhaps both should link to our article on him, as cite 11 does?
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work you've done in response to this review- the article's looking that little bit tidier now. I'm passing it- well done! J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note

[edit]

Apparently Gardner was first to reject A. intermedius. Source is

  • Gardner, Charles (1927). "Contributiones Florae Australiae Occidentalis, vi". Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia. 9: 39.

Hesperian 12:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, something's wrong there. That source is for A. intricatus (syn. A. argyreus). Hesperian 06:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section ordering

[edit]

Shouldn't the Description section go after Taxonomy? I'm not sure, but it's just something I've noticed in other taxa FAs... Auree ★ 01:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's all Hesperian's fault as we've done it this way for all the proteaceae :( ...but seriously, years ago I always placed (and still do for birds, fungi etc.) taxonomy above description as (a) it gives a bit of background as to what we are defining as a species (b) there is a bit of description in the lead anyway (c) generally on older sqaure monitors, you're wanting to put images in the description section, which is a pain if there is a taxobox jutting down the RHS of the screen. Point (c) is becoming less relevant as we go to wider screens though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stable version

[edit]

Hi all, there is a new stable template that I have placed on this talk page. The purpose of this template, as explained in the documentation and in a short discussion at the village pump, is to help against article rot (the deterioration of quality that can occur in articles), and to keep a link to a stable version, which will be reliable, and not so prone to those errors, vandalism, and erroneous information that can crop up at any moment. It has no effect on the actual article, and can be upgraded/changed at any time - ideally to reflect a newer, improved stable version. This being said, if you are against using it on this talk page (some have found it intrusive), feel free to discuss or remove it - I believe that it will benefit some articles more than others, and I accept that not all will see a need for it on each article. Falconusp t c 22:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adenanthos obovatus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adenanthos_obovatus&oldid=1198011661"