Talk:Erythranthe

Latest comment: 7 years ago by Sminthopsis84 in topic GA Review

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 12:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I propose to take on this review and will study the article in detail shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Some preliminary thoughts

edit
  • If you want to discuss the etymology of the name, it is probably best to have a section devoted to it, or you could have an "Etymology and taxonomy" section.
I was thinking you would be moving in all or part of the first paragraph of your Description section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  Done I agree. This is better. HalfGig talk 21:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • The Description section should be a description of the general characteristics of the group, see Cucurbita, an article you know well, for what I mean. Zombia is another example.
  • Do you need to have two species lists? Do they contain the same species, or are some species in one and not the other?
    • Since there are so many and there are significant section differences, I thought making two helped seeing the larger picture and if you want to know what's in a section, it's easy to do so, and likewise for having a straight listing. HalfGig talk 01:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • Personally, I would put the species lists at the end of the article because otherwise people may not even find the text below.
I think that is a considerable improvement, leaving the main part of the article more rounded and compact. I will now study the article in detail and continue with the rest of the review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

First reading

edit
That's all for now. It is quite a challenging article because of the complexity of the taxonomy of the genus. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Second reading

edit

Sminthopsis84 has made a few alterations to the article. I have done some light copyediting, and here are a few more things I noticed:

  • "Molecular data show Erythranthe and Diplacus to be distinct evolutionary lines, not each other's closest relative, and apart from strictly defined Mimulus." - How about leaving out the middle phrase and rewording this as "Molecular data show Erythranthe and Diplacus to be distinct evolutionary lines that are distinct from Mimulus as strictly defined."
  • "The plant is hairy to slightly hairy and grows from 0.5–3 cm (0.20–1.18 in) tall." - This is about Erythranthe alsinoides and the dimensions are wrong (more likely 5 to 30 cm tall).
  • "The flowers are yellow with reddish-brown spots, usually on the lower lip, and have fuse into upper and lower lips" - This sentence needs attention.
  • "Diplacus is clearly derived from within Mimulus s.l. and was not usually considered to be a separate genus." - I don't understand this. What do you mean by "Mimulus s.l."?
    • abbr for "sensu lato", meaning in the broad sense. This is used in botany a lot, as is "sensu stricto", meaning in the strict sense. I've changed to lay terms. HalfGig talk 13:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • "in central California between 200,000 and 500,000 years ago" - It is customary to put the oldest date first.
I think that's all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply
@Cwmhiraeth: Ready for next round. HalfGig talk 13:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

GA criteria

edit
  • The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout. 
  • The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.  
  • The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.  
  • The article is neutral.  
  • The article is stable.  
  • The images are relevant and have suitable captions, and are either in the public domain or properly licensed.