Talk:Mammillaria spinosissima

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mammillaria spinosissima/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Will be happy to offer a review. I should finish this tomorrow by the latest JAGUAR  18:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

• " D. R. Hunt collected a specimen in 1971" - this might read better with his full name and title Botanist David Hunt collected a specimen in 1971

Good idea. Done.

• "They reach full height after five to ten years" - what is their full height? (If it's already mentioned at "The cylindrical plants grow up to 30 centimetres (12 in) tall", don't worry)

I put this right after the mention of their height, so it's a bit clearer now.

• All instances of "centimetres" should probably be changed to "centimeters" per WP:ENGVAR

Hmmm. The conversion template renders it that way, so I'm not sure how to avoid it.

• "Though larger, the Opuntia genera is less popular" - how is it less popular? Are the fewer in the world?

I added that they are less popular with gardeners and landscapers. In nature, they are more abundant, but in gardens less popular.

• "Scheer ex Salm-Dyck expanded the classification" - what does this mean!

I know right! That's the dude's name.

• No caption for the image in the Description section?

Added

• The Cultivation could do with some rephrasing as most of it is identical to the lead

I did some tweaking, and will do some more too.

• "The genus Mammillaria‍‍ '​‍s native habitat ranges from Colombia and Venezuela to the Southwestern United States" - its growth in these countries were not mentioned in the lead (this can be ignored)

I figured the lead ought to be specific to the species, this part pertains to the genus, but not Mammillaria spinosissima.

References

• No problem with the references

On hold

This is a very good article. It is well written, informative and comprehensive. I checked whatever I was able to with the bibliography, but everything checks out fine. Honestly the points above are so minor that I wondered why I put it on hold! I'm not sure why the caption is empty in one of the images and why "centimetres" doesn't follow the usual spelling of "meter"? Once all of the above are clarified you can have a GA JAGUAR  19:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for providing this review, Jaguar. I addressed your above concerns, and I'll do some more tweaking to the cultivation section and lead so they aren't so similar. Let me know if there's anything more I should do. RO^(talk) 19:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Scheer ex Salm-Dyck is such a cool name LOL. Thanks for addressing them swiftly, RO! The centimetre spelling should be fine. This looks good to go now, well done on all the work put into this! JAGUAR  19:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jaguar! RO^(talk) 20:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Repetition

Good detailed article, but I have an issue with the Lead section, which appears to repeat large chunks of the main text verbatim. The purpose of the Lead section is to summarize the contents briefly, rather than needless repetition. Darorcilmir (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)