Talk:Narcissus (plant)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Fredlyfish4 (talk · contribs) 18:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox

• Does the listed conservation status apply to the entire genus? Normally I see this only for single species or subspecies, so unless it applies to the who genus, leave it out of the infobox.

 Done IUCN lists 5 species. OK I will remove and apply to all species pages listed--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead

• Link to the ancients you refer to in this context

 Done changed and linked to ancient civilisation since I cannot see a way to link to a list of names, and adding names to text would lengthen the lead further--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Link to asphodel if possible

 Done linked to Asphodelus as in text --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Link to alkaloid--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done

• The lead looks good overall, but should be condensed to 3-4 paragraphs.

 Done shortened and reduced from 5 paragraphs to 4 --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Description

• Should "hermaphrodite" be "hermaphroditic" in this context?

 Done let's stick with hermaphroditic which is in the source cited --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• Is there a number of species that the Royal Horticultural Society accepts? If so include it too.

 Done could have been worded better - the International Register is the RHS list - reworded and updated --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• What does "recent hybrids" refer to? Recent with respect to what?

 Done The terms are used as defined by Zonneveld, hence the quotes, to refer to stages in the evolution of speciation. So recent with respect to ancient, ie not yet established as an independent species. Reworded.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ecology

• Be careful when stating "most important disease." From what perspective is this the most important? Or is it the most common, most deadly, or something else? Statements like "most important" can appear to violate the neutral point of view (NPOV).

 Done In plant pathology, the term is generally used with reference to economic impact. Reworded - replaced important with serious --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Should "narcissus white mould disease" have "Narcissus white mould disease, or is this in line with fungal naming conventions? Same thing with "Narcissus leaf scorch" and "Narcissus eelworm."

 Done I had that same thought when writing this section, but stuck with the naming convention, since the genus name is being used as an adjective, not a proper noun. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• Why is the common swift moth notable? If not explained or verified, just say "including" rather than "notably."

 Done reworded --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Cultivation

• Narcissus is consistently used throughout the article, not daffodil. So why are groups of images labelled as daffodils?

 Done Well not entirely, where sources are using 'daffodil' I stuck with it. i changed one group - the early illustrations, but kept the other because that's what the text refers to. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• The quote starting "I thinke none..." needs a citation after it.

 Done It followed the citation - nevertheless I changed it to a {{quote}}--Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

• When you state something as being the "most popular" you should include a citation after that exact sentence to reduce potential issues with NPOV.

 Done In this context, 'popular' implies sales data - reworded --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• The Narcissi as garden plants section is under-referenced

 Done references added --Michael Goodyear (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Images

• When were these two images published or when did the author die? [1], [2]

 Done Dates added to files

Other comments for potential FA review, but not needed for passing GA:

• Check that all links are not going through redirects (such as perennial in the lead). Done
• Consistently use the abbreviated species name in the text, "N. tazetta" not "Narcissus tazetta."
• In the main text of the article there should generally be only one link to each other page. This includes the headings in the description section (bulbs, stems, leaves, etc) that are linked in the article text directly below.
• I would indent your bulleted lists so that the bullet is below or right of the paragraph edge
• Something to consider: if the entire Taxonomy of Narcissus article, can the text and table in this section be condensed?
• Do not leave the end of any paragraph unreferenced.
• When you have multiple inline citations adjacent to each other, put them in numerical order.
• Consider archiving webpages and online documents cited in the article.
• I'm not sure the system of subheadings in the bibliography is appropriate, but I wouldn't change it yet.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: