Talk:Schlumbergera/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will go through and make straightforward copyedits as I go. I'll jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'd list the number of species in the lead.~~

Done. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd write the two cultivar groups as straight prose, not bulleted points, in the lead.

~~Any idea how big the "sizeable shrubs" can get?~~

Very good question. All sources describe the species as "shrubs"; "sizeable" is a paraphrase of one comment, but is clearly evasive. The only dimension I can find is in McMillan & Horobin for one species – a height of 1.2 m. I've added this. I've no idea whether this is typical of other species in the wild; my guess is that as they grow as epiphytes, they haven't been measured very often! Peter coxhead (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea either, but at least something to visualise is way better than nothing, so even the one example helps alot here I think...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter, The RHS encyclopedia of house plants lists S. russeliana as "up to 15cm(6in) or more tall" if you want a lower range to include. --Tom Hulse (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thanks for the pointer. Not sure if that adds anything to understanding...will muse on it...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this describes it when grown in cultivation. In McMillan & Horobin, p. 85, there is a photo captioned "an older plant of S. russelliana, showing the woody base". There's an arm in the photo; the part of the plant shown is almost exactly three times the apparent distance from the elbow to the knuckles. The arm is angled towards the viewer, so the apparent length is less than the real length; that part of my arm is 40 cm, projected at say 45° gives about 30 cm. Hence the part shown must at least 90 cm long, so the plant is certainly at least a metre from base to tip as there's stuff off the photo. The thickest part is thicker than the arm's thumb but less so than two fingers side by side, i.e. around 3 cm. I guess these facts are too much like OR to put in Wikipedia. I've been all through McMillan & Horobin again and I can't find any other statement about the size of the plants; they just repeat "shrub" (their italics) in the species descriptions. Anderson (2001) is usually a good source on cacti, but it's clear than almost all of his descriptions are just paraphrases of McMillan & Horobin. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~In taxonomy any info on related genera, where its affinities lie in the Cactaceae? Not much needed but a sentence or two'd be nice.~~

Added small opening piece to section re their position in the tribe Rhipsalideae. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Any information on root system which can go in ecology section? Any critters eat the fruit?~~

roots In cultivation, small pots are recommended, apparently based on the idea that the root system is small and can rot if in too large a pot which doesn't dry out, but I can't find anything on the roots in the wild at present. If you look at the top stem – particularly the very middle joint – in the left-hand image at Schlumbergera#Modern_cultivars you can see the roots which typically emerge from many joints in my experience, but this is OR; at present I can't find this described in a source.

fruit The last paragraph of section already noted that birds eat the fruit; I'm not aware of any other information in the sources I have. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that's fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Notable pests and diseases?~~

I can find no information about them in the wild (rather little seems to be known about their ecology). There's a lot of information about pests and diseases in cultivation. I'm always unsure how much to include because of WP:NOTHOW. Can you point me to an example article which you think has about the right amount of information on this topic? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TO avoid a how-to section, I'd just write something like "Schlumbergeras are vulnerable to...." or "x and x are common pests..." - will see what else has bee nwritten...Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've looked around at other articles and now added a short final section which I think is ok within WP:NOTHOW. (I suspect this policy rather frustrates a lot of readers, who really want to know how to care for their house plants. I don't entirely buy the argument that there are lots of other sources which give this information; there are, but the great majority are not reliably based on scientific data but on repeating uncritically what other gardening books say. Wikipedia could often offer much better information. However, the policy is clear.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's what I had in mind. Agree about many gardening books having extremely generic and often incorrect information-another reason I try to avoid tertiary sources-as an example, here's what I did at Telopea_speciosissima#Cultivation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a very good example which I will bookmark for the future. (I'll also change my use of "oomycetes" to your "water mould" (British spelling!) which is better here. All the sources I've looked at haven't caught up with them not being fungi.) Peter coxhead (talk) 11:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking pretty good overall, just sorting out coverage first. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

Looks good - only thing is you might want to replace the backyardgardener ref with a better one, but fairly mundane fact it references. Nice...Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Peter, very nice article. --Tom Hulse (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]