This article got promoted to GA earlier this year (a fairly
detailed review by Funkmonk, thanks!). Anyway, I think it is the equal of any of the other 28 banksia FAs. Should be simple fixes which I will fix pronto. and a short article. have at it.
Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 21:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Support Comments from Jim
I'll have more comments later,but just some number stuff to kick off.
Jimfbleak -
talk to me? 07:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Why fractions eg 1 1⁄4 rather than decimal 1.25?
someone objected to the use of decimals with imperial units in a past FA, so have been using fractions ever since.Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 23:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Numbers in a range should be quoted with the same accuracy, so, for example, I'd have 2.5–3.0 cm (1–1+1⁄4 in), not 2.5–3 cm (1–1+1⁄4 in)
my bad - I use the names in my head interchangeably and changed to the wrong one. Changed to "range" now.Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 23:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Changed to support above. I was hoping that the food source bit might be more specific (insects? honeyeaters? both?) but it's not a big deal, good luck
Jimfbleak -
talk to me? 06:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)reply
source doesn't specify but is talking in general terms. Correct answer is likely all of the above...thx 4 supportCas Liber (
talk·contribs) 09:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comments from Josh
"It does not have a woody base, known as a lignotuber, that many other banksias have." This doesn't quite flow right, for me.
"The obovate (egg-shaped) seed is 4–5 cm (1 5⁄8–2 in) long and fairly flattened, and is composed of the wedge-shaped seed body (containing the embryonic plant), measuring 1.0–1.2 cm (3⁄8–1⁄2 in) long and 1.5–1.8 cm (5⁄8–3⁄4 in) wide, and a papery wing." Perhaps this could be split; four ands!
split sentence and removed another 'and'...Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 02:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I personally hate "empty" external link sections like that. Is there a database record or something that could be linked to? Alternatively, we have
Template:Sister-inline and similar.
the sister template is good and tweaked- all other good stuff is referenced alreadyCas Liber (
talk·contribs) 02:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)reply
agree,
Hesperian made the map in 2009 and I can't find the blank one on commons...Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 14:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Hi guys. See the image source= parameter: "It was created by Hesperian, using the IBRA 6.1 data...." That is, I created the base map myself, using a GIS and publicly available vector data.
Hesperian 00:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)reply
That's all that's jumping out at me. Short, but key questions are answered, and you do have sourced mentions of how the species is little-known, so I'm not too worried about that.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 23:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Sources:
It seems that you're missing locations on your Flora of Australia source, but I admit I'm not sure how that is handled when there are multiple publishers. Is this perhaps published by CSIRO on behalf of the ABRS? The way you cite The Banksia Book may be viable.
Also, George's name is sometimes linked, sometimes not. There doesn't seem to be a clear pattern; judging from the other names, first mention in the cites only? What's the pattern for linking journal names?
yeah I think first mention of author names is best. Some reviewers have been keen for journal links.Cas Liber (
talk·contribs) 13:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't both including the publishers of journals, but, if you do, do so consistently.
All sources appropriately scholarly; no spotchecks done. I can't speak to comprehensiveness. (Sorry- that was picky.)
Josh Milburn (
talk) 22:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I also note that there's some inconsistency between title case and sentence case article titles.
Josh Milburn (
talk) 02:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I'll review this next week.
Singora (
talk) 18:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Singora, I'm about ready to close this based on the existing commentary/checks but will hold open a little longer if you still want to review. Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk) 03:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Ian Rose, apologies -- I've been unusually busy over the last few days and unfortunately don't have time to review this article. I see it's got three supports, so I'm sure it's good to go!
Singora (
talk) 10:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)reply
In "Taxonomy", "this was only discovered only a century later": I'm not sure "discovered" is the right word I'd use for the recognition of a segregate species. In this case, I might say something like "this distinction was first made over a century later". Instead of "He based the species on...", I might say "As the
type of the species, George chose..." The article on B. caleyi links
Taxonomy of Banksia as the main article from its Taxonomy section; is this suitable?
In "Ecology", the same article is linked twice: once at "canopy seed bank" and once via redirect from "aerial seed bank". The terminology should be made consistent and linked at first occurrence. I would say "dependent on" instead of "depend upon", although I'm not sure why.
Other than that, this looks pretty good; comparable to the B. caleyi article. The shortness is understandable given that the taxon doesn't have a long history.
Choess (
talk) 02:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Support: I did not find any significant issues. Everything looks to be in good order and the article appears to satisfy the FA criteria.
Praemonitus (
talk) 16:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Closing note: This
candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the
bot goes through.
Ian Rose (
talk) 12:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.