Talk:Lambertia formosa

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 15:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy to give this a look-over. Review to follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• "It gains its common name from the woody follicles." How so?

added to lead now Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• "is resistant to dieback (Phytophthora cinnamomi)," Did you want to say something else here? Comma instead of fullstop.

oops, missed that. full stopped Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• "as Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub" as the Eastern...?

Yeah, although the official government page lacks the definite article...each mention uses it, so added it is.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• "(less than 1% flowerheads have six or eight flowers)" I may be wrong here, but shouldn't there be an "of" there? And would that be less, or fewer?

99% have 7, and <1% have either 6 or 8.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• "of (2–3 cm x 1–2 cm) fruit which have two (1–1.5 cm) sharp" What's going on here?

ambitious sentence - split into two more modest ones... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• "mallee shrubland" Jargon?

Linked now. It has a page - Mallee Woodlands and Shrublands - essentiually scrub with mallee (stunted multitrunked eucalypts) as scattered dominant plants. I was walking in some...actually in the Eastern Suburbs Banksia Scrub last weekend Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Flowering of plants growing back from fire peaks two or three years afterwards." Not a full sentence, I think

reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• "The red/pink colour, length of the tube and properties of the nectar indicate the flower is pollinated by honeyeaters," - that the flower...?

See, to my ears it sounds better without the "that", but I am often guilty of dropping words a bit too zealously.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Australian moth species Xylorycta strigata eat the leaves and make burrows in the wood.[11] The plant also hosts caterpillars of the cup moth species Mecytha fasciata.[11]" Is "Australian moth" a common name for a particular taxon? A quick search revealed nothing. Possibly link cup moth?

I was trying to think of some descriptor for a lepidopteran which lacked a common name. cup moth is an improvement... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• "to the west of London." Hammersmith's in west London, not to the west of London

fixed by Melburnian Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• "Its flowers attract birds, especially important as some flowers are present year-round." I'm not sure I understand this sentence. What's important?

year-round flowers means a year-round food supply. reworded to illustrate this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• "The species was the subject of an illustration by Sydney Parkinson, artist on HM Bark Endeavour's voyage to the Pacific from 1769 to 1771. A colour botanical engraving based on Parkinson's work is part of Banks' Florilegium.[23] First Fleet midshipman and artist George Raper depicted the species in two works; an untitled watercolour study (c. 1788) and Bird Of Point Jackson (1789).[24][25] Writer and illustrator George Collingridge incorporated the flower in several of his designs and unsuccessfully championed it as the floral emblem of Australia.[26]" Do we have any of these pictures? At least some will be PD, and may make a pleasant addition to the article?

the H.C. image is nicest of all I think. Added now Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• You don't really need the accessdates to courtesy links to journal articles/published books. If you are going to provide them, provide them for all?

removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• You've got a bit of inconsistency with capitalisation in references- I'd be too picky if I demanded that be resolved for GA status, but I thought I'd mention it. Some book titles capitalised, some not; some article titles capitalised, some not.

title case for names of books and articles - no accessdates for books... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Check pagerange on the George Barrington source?

fixed by Melburnian Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• The Australian Women's Weekly source formatting is a little odd. Could you not just cite it like a journal article?

fixed by Melburnian Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No issue with the images (which are very nice) or stability. The sources all seem appropriate, even if I can be picky with formatting here and there. Overall, a very strong article, as ever. I'll be happy to promote once these various fixes are made. J Milburn (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Great; promoting now. Sorry for the delay! J Milburn (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Habit photograph

I have the temerity to suggest an additional photograph of its habit or better still the habit of several mature shrubs well in focus and shown in their habitat (background). I'm very familiar with this beautiful plant in the field, in the hawkesbury sandstone region of greater Sydney. I know!—i know!—i should get out and do the work of the photography myself, instead of suggesting it to you people, who’ve done so much work on this article already.

Sorry i do not have such a photo on hand to provide. Please take this comment as a compliment, as just a thought, from a field botanist on a really good plant article, as this is the immediate thing, of the few things, that i notice to further improve it. ——--macropneuma 11:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been traipsing around but it looks so daggy in open forest, just a rangy looking thing. I've seen some great compact plants in the wind-swept heathland at Catherine Hill Bay (see here and here, but they are not really typical. I'll take a look on flickr and possibly do some traipsing tomorrow....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The best, most healthy and strong, plants that always come back, to visualise in my memory, when i think of Lambertia formosa, are in the magnificent valley below Belmore falls, southern highlands—quite a magnificent big walk—you may know—but not a short trip, especially only for a photo. However you could take thousands of magnificent plant photos in that very special place, eg. the special Libertia at the base of the falls and many more all around there, dracophyllums (? i forget if they’re there too). Mind you, i don’t know if the track (from the top of the falls) is still open. If need be, i can ask my family who live nearby in Kangaroo Valley. ——--macropneuma 13:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Damn - haven't been down that way in ages - agree it is a very nice part of the world.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Original illustration …

… beaut surprise! (—a pity the scan’s reproduction of the engraving is not perfect (they probably didn’t bother to lift out the lift out!), as it’s overlapping some text. i will discuss in due course, see that page (223) and scroll backwards to page 214). ——--macropneuma 14:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC) On further, closer, inspection, it is in the paper (over 200 years old); the engraving ink has bled into the other side of the folded page, of that copy they scanned; i take back what i said about the scan. Maybe take a photo of this page of another copy, of this over 200 years old journal, in a Sydney library—maybe someone in the herbarium has already got such a proper photographic reproduction, from a well preserved copy(?) ——--macropneuma 14:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice find! There are editors here who are expert at restoring old illustrations like this...just have to find out who and where.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Article status

How is this a featured article? It doesn't seem comprehensive of everything to me (although it looks like it should be a good article)! Gug01 (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

With some articles there is such a plethora of information that it is hard to distill it all into one article. With this one was there was not a lot of information out there, but we hope that we have done justice to summarising it all. If any new information comes to light that adds to the understanding of this species, we will be happy to include it.--Melburnian (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Gug01 what are you thinking it is missing? We searched alot for information so may be able to explain. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@Casliber: In general, I really appreciated the article, but for some reason there was not as much information as most featured articles have. I am assuming that there just isn't as much information about this species than say, the lion or humans ourselves. I was just wondering and looked for clarification. Just keep a watch on this species, because I've seen countless articles demoted from featured rank status because of not being up-to-date. Gug01 (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I will. The difference between some species in knowledge is amazing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)