Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Symphyotrichum lateriflorum/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 October 2021 [1].

Symphyotrichum lateriflorum[edit]

Nominator(s): Eewilson (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the vascular plant species Symphyotrichum lateriflorum in the family Asteraceae. Symphyotrichum is a genus of about 96 asters native to the Americas. Most in the Northern Hemisphere bloom August–October, some as late as November. There are very few GA articles from this family, and this is the first for this genus. It has received only positive responses on its content and photographs during 2021, and I think it would be a great addition to the FA list and, if possible, one to appear during this Fall season (although obviously only if possible). I will work closely with any reviewers to make this article top notch. Eewilson (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Given that the range includes non-US countries, why have a range map that is US-only? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, and I will create a new one to include Canada and Mexico. Eewilson (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Native distribution map has been updated. Eewilson (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great. If possible can the map be made slightly larger? And if that's not possible within the template, can we add "(click to enlarge)" in the caption? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I did both. See what you think. I did get rid of the second species image from the taxobox to accommodate the extra size. If we need it or a similar one, it can be put somewhere else on the page. Eewilson (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looking now....

@Casliber: made some comments, indented bullet level. —Eewilson (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd abbreviate all measurements. currently most aren't but you start abbreviating halfway down the description section...
    • Modified and made sure I only spelled out on first use of each unit (per MOS:UNITNAMES)
  • ...with alternate leaves = "alternate" can be linked to phyllotaxis.
    • done
  • avoid 1-2 sentence paras if you can
    • I'll check
  • don't bold in body of article - names for the plant there can be plain or in quotation marks
    • You mean in the Etymology section?
Yes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, see if that works. I just made them plain text. —Eewilson (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah this is often tricky in biology articles - see, the standard mark-up would be to use italics for words-as-words (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Italic_type) - however that poses a problem when a page is peppered with italic scientific names - same issue arises with foreign words and bird calls. So alternatives are no mark-up or quotation marks (though with plants that then creates problems if you have a bunch of cultivars written..sigh...some discretion and pragmatism hels here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow - the level of detail. I'd remove sentences that specify the L.=Linnaeus myself....
    • Gee, thanks? I'll look at the L. stuff
    • Do you mean remove all of this, part of this, or what? Just making sure I know what you're thinking. "The letter L followed by a period (or dot), written L., is the standard botanical author abbreviation for Carl Linnaeus. Likewise, Á.Löve and D.Löve are the abbreviations for Icelandic botanist Áskell Löve and Swedish botanist Doris Löve, respectively. Linnaeus' abbreviation is placed in parentheses because his authorship was retained when Áskell and Doris Löve cited Solidago lateriflora L. as the basionym when they renamed the species."
Yes, those sentences are what I mean Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so that's gone. —Eewilson (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In two minds about cultivars (being bolded) - need to think on this. More later
    • Yeah, I bolded them because they are to sort of be like sections only with bullet-points, for readability.
  • I'm confused about variety horizontale - if Aster pendulus is the earliest combination why is it not var. pendulum...?
Good question and one I didn't ask. Let me see if there's something I missed to explain why or perhaps I worded something incorrectly. —Eewilson (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This will require some digging. I am not sure if I missed something or somebody else (a past botanist) missed something. I may have to check the Code to see if it fit as an exception. Because the varieties are no longer accepted by POWO, the synonymy is linked up strictly with the species now. However, COL does have historical records, and I may be able to find something there. —Eewilson (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Alright, so it wasn't until 1889 that Nathaniel Lord Britton combined Solidago lateriflora L., Aster diffusus Aiton, and Aster miser Aiton into one species named Aster lateriflorus (L.) Britton, with Solidago lateriflora L. as the basionym, because it was the earliest. Nobody had recognized that what was called Solidago lateriflora was really an aster until Britton did. So anything that happened with this species, including the descriptions of varieties, was done on one of the other names (including Aster divergens, not listed here but is in the article). You can see the chronology of the definitions in the Wikispecies entry which I filled out fully when doing research for this article. So, the bottom line with the species and varieties is that Solidago lateriflora was sort of the unnoticed step-child until 1889. Now, all of them are synonyms of Symphyotrichum lateriflorum. Was there cleanup that should have been or should be done with the names? I don't know. Maybe it has because it is now all in POWO. If there still were not ambiguity in this species, with the existing question of "are there varieties or aren't there," then this article would be simpler. So I'm not sure what to do here. I can't write an idea of what probably happened. Maybe I could write something like this after the information regarding Britton in 1889:
Until this time, these species were treated separately, as were any varieties associated with them.
What do you think? —Eewilson (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I need to drink some more coffee..and re-look then :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was this: Aster lateriflorus var. pendulus E.S.Burgess. I'm updating the synonym list based on POWO 2021. I may have a bit of work to do in taxonomy. I'll get back with you. You can keep on suggesting if you want, or just wait. Eewilson (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Main thing is to avoid OR - we can only reflect on material in existence. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: Agreed. At this point, I have cleaned up stubby paragraphs. Clarified some text in taxonomy. Added a quote from Karl McKay Wiegand to the beginning of an existing sentence in taxonomy, new text in bold: "In a 1928 study of Aster lateriflorus and close relatives, while pondering the "endless confusion in the naming of specimens" of this species, American botanist Karl McKay Wiegand noted how environmental differences likely affected leaf and flower head characteristics, causing botanists to name specimens of this plant as different varieties or species when they may not have been." Also, I updated the synonyms from POWO to make sure the list in the species box is comprehensive and current. Likely a few other things today. So I'm all done without further input. Where does it stand, do you think? —Eewilson (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blargh - looks good on comprehensiveness (any outstanding issues are extremely obscure/minor) and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thank you! —Eewilson (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's next?[edit]

Because this is my first FAC, and because it doesn't appear as structured as GA review, I now wonder what is next? Does anyone else look at it? Anything I can do to push it along? Who else, if anyone, should I ping? I ask only because this species is in full bloom at this time, and if it were possible to get it on the front page before the end of October, it would be a great time to do that. —Eewilson (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Each FAC needs a minimum of 3 reviewers, so the best thing anyone can do is review at least 3 others and maybe someone might come and review yours. People will come eventually (PS: not supposed to be a quid pro quo thing as such though). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! Already working on (or did) one. Once I finish the GA review I'm into, I'll work on more. Thanks so much for your review, Cas! —Eewilson (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TRM[edit]

Way out of my comfort zone but some general comments which might improve things:

  • "the family Asteraceae native to" is a sea of blue.
    • Done.
  • Although the lead has four paras, it still feels that they could be fleshed out a little.
    • Done, I think. Suggestions welcomed.
  • "lanceolate, rarely" that's overlinked.
    • Done.
  • "was described by Linnaeus" overlinked.
    • Done.
  • "879.[22]: 879  Latin" is that Latin needed? If so, add a full stop after.
    • I had a full stop and someone came in and removed it. Restored. "Latin" may not be needed, but I don't know that it's a big deal. I can remove it if you insist.
  • "Club.[43][11]: 174  He" etc etc, I usually expect to see citations in numerical order.
    • Fixed in all locations for your viewing pleasure.
  • "He actually said" does "actually" really add anything here?
    • That's what was wrong with that sentence! Removed.
  • "botanist René Louiche Desfontaines described" overlinked.
    • Done.
  • "second part of the scientific name" overlinked.
    • I moved the link to the first mention, which does not count the infobox.
  • "botanist William Aiton in" same.
    • Done.
  • "and Prince Edward Island. In" same.
    • Done.
  • "the European Union's", Italy etc, no need to link major geographical or organisational entities.
    • Done. Removed links for continents, countries, and the EU.
  • "documented the Meskwaki use" overlinked.
    • Done.
  • " the Potawatomi pûkwänä'sîkûn" likewise.
    • Done.
  • "with Symphyotrichum novae-angliae to " same.
    • Done. Crazy that nobody has noticed all of these until now, including me.
  • Miller, Chelsea Physic Garden, RHS and Award of Garden Merit all overlinked.
    • Well, dang. Done.
  • And put (RHS) the first time you mention that society.
    • Done.
  • Cultivars, this may be controversial, but this looks like it is ideally suited for a table rather than this lengthy list of pretty much proseline.
    • Well, I began it as a table last year then decided on a bulleted list. I'll change it if consensus here insists. To be honest, I could go either way (but really don't want to do that work right now before FA). If you all think it would make the article better, I'm all for it. Another option, if there are enough cultivars, would be a List article. It is nothing like the number of Symphyotrichum novae-angliae cultivars, but it could work.

Hopefully some of that is useful. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thank you! I'll see what I can do. —Eewilson (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By all means ping me if anything is unclear or if you need any help with any of the issues I've raised. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Okay, suggested changes made and comments above. —Eewilson (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Hi! I wanted to touch base to see if you have anything else on this or if you are ready to state your claim. —Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • TRM ? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy that most of my changes have been implemented satisfactorily. I still think the cultivars should be "tablefied", or sent out to a list article but if I'm the only person with that in mind, there's perhaps no consensus to do so. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I see your point re tablication. But it looks FAC standard as it is and I can see the argument for leaving it. So, yeah, let's see what other reviewers make of it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man and Gog the Mild. You all are killing me. :) Eewilson (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on the table idea from the nominator. I started looking into this. I think putting it in a table could be a good idea if it were a separate list article. See User:Eewilson/List of Symphyotrichum lateriflorum cultivars. I think it would be best to leave it as is (prose-y) if it remains in the article. If it is later pulled out into a separate list article, then we could do a Main link to a list. But I'm not sure (or excited) about changing it for FA. That's my 2 cents. I mean, I won't say "no" but I may silently cry, and nobody wants that. Eewilson (talk) 05:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are no hard and fast rules - I recall leaving cultivars in a sort of prose/listy form much like in this version Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man and Gog the Mild, as Casliber links it, that's where it remains now, which then is fine for FA? Eewilson (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WOO HOO! thank you! Eewilson (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "are rarely tinted pink or lavender" - source?
    • This is in the Florets subsection: "ray florets grow in one series and are usually white, rarely pinkish or purplish." The source citation is there.
      • Does the source say purple, or does it say lavender? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the ray florets, it actually says "white, rarely pinkish or purplish." Do you think I should use the exact text? Eewilson (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think "lavender" is more specific than "purple", so if the source just says purple we should just say purple. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well as misspellings Aster laterifolius and Symphyotrichum laterifolium" - source?
    • Hmmm. I may need to take that out because previously removed sources that got removed during GA review contained those misspellings.
  • Don't mix {{citation}}-family templates with {{cite}}-family templates
  • Be consistent in when publication location is included
    • Can you elaborate on this one? Not sure I understand what you mean
      • Okay, a few just don't have locations. Citations 4, 6, 17, and 91 use the Template:eFloras which formats in its own way. I made sure everything else had a location when available and removed the Wikilinks from the locations per the documentation in the Cite templates that says the location parameter is "usually not Wikilinked." Eewilson (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Be consistent in how these are formatted, and see MOS:POSTABBR. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't even notice that. It's the (stupid) eFloras template (which I do not like and do not like being constrained). I'm in a bit of a quandary here. If I don't use it, someone will later likely come along and change it because I think we (via the PLANTS project) are encouraged to use certain templates. I could be wrong on this. @Casliber: If there is a citation template for a source (e.g., Template:eFloras as we are discussing here), do we have to use it, and am I correct in that someone will likely come along and change it in the article if it's not used? Eewilson (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was able to set via = eFloras to get rid of all the unnecessary garbage there. Maybe that will do? Eewilson (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Compare the formatting of the location in FN23 versus 71, for example. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • AHH! Okay, the thing is that all of this "The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Harvard University Herbaria & Libraries; and, Australian National Botanic Gardens" is the combined publishers. The Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew are actually called "Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew". So, in FN23, I removed the location Kew out (just today, I think), but I should really put it back in and not fill in the location field according to what the cite template instructions say. With FN71, I'm not sure what to do. It is three locations, three organizations combined to publish IPNI (International Plant Name Index, which I took out of the author and website and now just have www.ipni.org which makes me wonder if that's enough). Looking for your guidance on these. Kinda tearing my hair out, but once we figure it out, then I have 95 other plant articles in this genus that can be formatted the correct way. Eewilson (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there no secondary sources available for the information cited to Britannica?
    • Probably. It's possible I didn't have it then. I'll check.
  • Why include both domain and website name in one parameter?
I must have thought that was required, but maybe not. Which would be better? Eewilson (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Simplified website parameters to have only the domain. Eewilson (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't being done consistently, and be consistent in how these are formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought I did. Is this the eFloras again? Eewilson (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them include www (eg FN72), while others don't (eg FN79) - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go through them. Some may have a www in their name and some may not. Eewilson (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why include both website and publisher when they are nearly identical?
Too thorough? :) Will fix. Eewilson (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why repeat publisher in the author parameter?
If the website asks for it to be cited that way, then if the author is the same as the publisher, should I leave the publisher out? If the website asks for both to be included, should I include both? Eewilson (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example from one website. NatureServe Explorer asks for citations formated with NatureServe as the author, publisher, and NatureServe Explorer as the website. Eewilson (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC) "NatureServe. YYYY. NatureServe Explorer [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available https://explorer.natureserve.org/. (Accessed: Month DD, YYYY)."[reply]
As long as we provide sufficient information to identify the source, we don't need to follow the format in the source's suggested citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know that. I'll adjust them. Eewilson (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Catalogue of Life citations (Hassler) are multi-level, hence, complicated.
  • I shortened those long and crazy old titles of books.

—Eewilson (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the citations would benefit from some simplification.
    • It's likely. I'll see what I can do.

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks. I'll take a look at all of this. Eewilson (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Made changes. See above. Awaiting more source review if you have it. Thanks. Eewilson (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Simplified more. I think the only outstanding issue is the eFloras one. I will do what you say on that. Please review, and I'm open to any of your suggestions. I'd like to ask, because I am a pretty literal person, could you give me the actual citation numbers for the rest of your input? Thanks. Eewilson (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was able to set via = eFloras to get rid of all the unnecessary garbage there. Maybe that will do? Eewilson (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Updates.

  • Changed "lavender" to "purple".
  • Removed location if already mentioned in publisher parameter.
  • Spelled out GBIF, IPNI, and ITIS (this will be easy to see in the Diff).
  • I chose to go with the www prefix because more worked with it than without. Added www prefix for all website parameters where it would work if the user typed it in that way. There are some for which www isn't appropriate (e.g., explorer.natureserve.com; gobotany.nativeplanttrust.org; data.canadensys.net). I checked every single one of the domain names in the website parameters and made sure they work as they are now.
  • Changed "powo.science.kew.org" to the more current "www.plantsoftheworldonline.org" in the url and website parameters.
  • Wikilinked a few publishers that needed it since I removed the unneeded authors.
  • See § Big messed up publisher for my comments about the big messed up publisher value in FNs 2, 44, 45, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 61, 71, 82, and 85. These are all for the International Plant Names Index (IPNI).
  • What should I do about the mess in FNs 33 and 35?

Eewilson (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think what you've done for FN2 etc as far as publisher is fine, just take out the "and, " bit. I'm still not clear on why we need to have IPNI listed as the author as well as the work for these, and that goes for a number of others sources as well. For 33/35, could you explain your thinking on why they're set up the way they are at the moment? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replies
    • FN2 etc: I cleaned up the IPNI publishers. Do you think I should Wikilink those? Seems like that would be consistent. It would be "Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Harvard University Herbaria & Libraries; Australian National Botanic Gardens".
    • FN2 etc: With the IPNI author, after I removed the name and just kept the URL for those, and had removed it from the author field as well, I realized IPNI was no longer spelled out. Does that matter? Let me know.
    • FN74: With the citation for "AGM Plants December 2020 RHS - Ornamental", it needs to have the date and honestly, I don't like what happens with dates when there is no author (they move, but likely they are supposed to). So on that one, I put Royal Horticultural Society as the author instead of the publisher (before, I had it in both, plus the website! as you know). I could just deal with it and move it to publisher to be consistent. Your call.
      • No it does not need to have the date! the date is in the title of the work. Gah. Removed author and date params from FN74. Eewilson (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • FNs 3, 23, 83: Plants of the World Online - now that I changed the website to www.plantsoftheworldonline.org, POWO is spelled out, so I could remove those as author if you agree.
    • FN36: USDA, NRCS (2014) does not need the author but does need the year (which would move). Your call.
      • What's your concern with the date? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there is no author and there is a date, doesn't the date move to a different location? It doesn't matter. Just making sure that's what is supposed to happen. I'll make the change and we'll see. Eewilson (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Eewilson (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN137: Author TUINSeizoen [Garden Season] - wanted to spell out in English as well.
    • FNs 18, 20, 29: Question about the University of Waterloo citations. "www.uwaterloo.ca. Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo" is a lot of Waterloo. Not everyone would know that UWaterloo is in Ontario. How do you think I should format this?
      • I refer you to my question above: Why include both website and publisher when they are nearly identical? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dangit! I can't get the tendency I have toward redundancy out of my head. Maybe the website and then the location as Ontario would do it. Eewilson (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. Eewilson (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN93: Chicago Botanic Garden (2021) - we don't really need the date on this one, so I can remove the author.
    • FNs 33 and 35: The two Hassler, M. citations via Catalogue of Life. I tried to format it like the website had requested. Bottom line is the data is from Hassler, M. through COL which has all of those editors. Perhaps using "via" isn't the way to go. I could try to do it differently using the editor field, etc., to still have the same information.
      • Okay, I reformatted 33 and 35. They are still long because of all the editors but make more sense and seem to better represent the situation. Eewilson (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eewilson (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make these latest changes immediately. Eewilson (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, all done. Please let me know if there is anything else. Eewilson (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN7: there is a date at the source; is that not the date of the record? (This applies also to other refs from this site).
    • So on these herbarium specimen records, there are many dates: the date the specimen was collected, the date (or dates) it was identified as a certain species by botanist(s) (aka, "determined"), the date it was photographed, the date it was put online, and the date I accessed the online record. There could be another, but I've never seen those recorded, and that would be the date the specimen was preserved/mounted. The date you see on the record for FN7, for example, is verbatim "15 Aug. 1960". That is the date it was collected. You can also view the image which shows that date on the label as well as the text "Det. B.Boivin Feb. 1961". The date is was determined by botanist "B.Boivin". The date I need for my citation, since I am citing the New York Botanical Garden, is the date NYBG put it online, and that isn't available. Some herbaria put it on their records, and some don't. Hence, "n.d." Now, if you think I should just leave the date field out altogether, I could do that, but it could entice someone later to add one of the available dates, which would be wrong. Eewilson (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN33: where is the second part of the title coming from? Why is it formatted differently from FN35?
    • Formatted differently because I didn't pay attention. It comes from the sample bibliographic citation at the bottom of the page for the 2017 reference (FN33) and the bottom of the page "Source dataset" value for the 2020 reference (FN35). They are the same text: "World Plants: Synonymic Checklists of the Vascular Plants of the World". It is the database that fed this data to Catalogue of Life. It should not be italicized, so I will change that formatting for FN35, but I believe it should still be in the part of the citations associated with the link as it is what is "In" the Catalogue of Life and, in that case, similarly to a book chapter or a journal article, it should be inside the quotes as a part of the record we are accessing. I put it at the end of the link title so that the species name would be first. However, the 2009 and 2012 citations have it before the species. I will decide which is better and adjust accordingly. Eewilson (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what cases are you using "n.d.", versus just not filling in the parameter? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course I am inconsistent with this, including the herbarium specimens from BRIT which I put as "2020" but should be "n.d." I'll double check and change them to that. It's likely I just did these at a different time and forgot what was what. Eewilson (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • FN18 has no date added or modified whereas most of the pages cited from uwaterloo.ca Astereae website do. Hence, "n.d." there as well. Eewilson (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The citations from which I removed the authors, I usually removed the dates if I thought they didn't really matter. However, it's probable that I should have kept some of them. The NatureServe citations for example. They update their data once a month, usually between the 1st and the 4th. If the accessed date is, say, 15 June 2021, then that is the June dataset. But if it was 1 June 2021, it may still be the May dataset. I should have kept those dates. I'll probably just update them as well as any {{As of}} values that apply. I need to go through all of the citations to make sure I didn't remove dates that should have remained. If there is a date, I will put the date. If there is not a date, I will put "n.d." Eewilson (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nikkimaria Drats. I forgot to comment earlier that I made changes. See what you think. Thanks. Eewilson (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to clarify this last point: your intention is that all refs that don't include a date should use n.d.? Or if not, how are you deciding? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • To be honest, I'm not sure what I should do. What would be the best thing to do if there is no date? For any reference? Like I said about the herbarium specimens, they have multiple dates, but none of them are the appropriate one. Web pages sometimes have copyright dates, but those aren't necessarily the date the page was written or published or last updated. Books and journals are much easier, and I don't question those. Is there a guideline about that somewhere? Eewilson (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I found the instructions. It's in Template:Cite web#Date (and it seems to be the same instructional text in all the Cite templates I checked, at least all of the ones I'm using, so Template:Cite <anything>#Date). Says if there is no date, use n.d.. So, to answer Nikkimaria's question about whether it's my intention for all refs that don't include a date should have n.d., I guess the answer is yes, it is my intention. I'll check again to make sure none are left out. I believe it's inherited from APA and Chicago styles. It is particularly important when using shortened footnotes (sfn) which I would have implemented in this article had I been sfn-savvy when I began it. I decided not to make that change for nearly 150 citations by the time it was at GA. Eewilson (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Volcanoguy[edit]

I don't know much about plants but after looking through the article I will support as I didn't find any obvious problems. It is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral and stable. The lead is welcoming to those who don't know much about this plant species. It also has an appropriate structure and all information is backed by inline citations using reliable sources. Good work Eewilson! Volcanoguy 08:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoguy Thank you! Eewilson (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Need more review?[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Are we good to go or do we need another review? Eewilson (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage I would be looking for another substantive review resulting in a support to nail down a consensus to promote. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does it need to be a Plants person? Casliber & Dracophyllum, should I ask on the Plants Project talk page? Do you know of some reviewers you could send this way? Eewilson (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if @Femkemilene would be able to? Dracophyllum 19:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Femke[edit]

Not sure I've got enough time to do a full review, but let's start. It seems like it's only nit-picking left. Femke (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lede Clearly written to be easier than the rest of the article.

  • whose late-summer and fall appearing flowers are visited by small pollinators and nectar-seeking insects such as sweat bees, miner bees, and hoverflies. Difficult sentence. Maybe "It is a conservationally secure species. Its flowers appear in late summer and fall, and are visited by small pollinators and nectar-seeking insects such as sweat bees, miner bees, and hoverflies.". Femke (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • For example, whereas a mature or returning plant, or one late in the season, may have one or more stiff stems that reach close to maximum height with several arching branches and multiple clusters of flowers, or inflorescences, an early or first-year plant may have one short and somewhat floppy stem with several large leaves and end abruptly with one flower head in the center Split into two or three sentences. Femke (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, maybe. Split into two but could be simplified? Suggestions welcomed. Eewilson (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diploid, tetraploid, hexaploid, and octaploid cytotypes with respective chromosome counts of 16, 32, 48, and 64 have been reported.[13]: 836  -> Maybe stupid question, but is that like during cell division, or are there actually plants with 64 chromosomes? Femke (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So in this species, x = 8, with x being the base number, 8 chromosomes, and typicaly you can count on most species being at least diploid, or having two sets in total, two sets of those 8 (one from each parent) is 16 chromosomes. In plants which have tested at 32 or 64, it means that there were 4 sets (8 times 4) or 6 or 8 sets, or whatever your number is. In humans, we have 46 in total, or 23 pairs. One set from male and one from female parent. In the case of the polyploidy with plants like this one, I'm fuzzy on how and when it happens, but you can end up with more than two sets. (The Wikipedia articles on those subjects need work.) In this genera, polyploidy is common which makes determining some species' evolution difficult. Sometimes it only can be surmised based on morphology rather than DNA testing. The latter can help only in a broad sense in some cases. Out of scope of this article, obviously, but asters are complicated. Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe you can say that plants have been found with X chromosomes, rather than using the jargon cytotypes? Femke (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They average 4–5 mm (3⁄20–1⁄5 in) long". -> in length. I don't think the grammar works. Femke (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Edited directly. Femke (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always wondered if these tiny measurements of inches are actually used in the US. I was under the impression that mm start being used from a certain threshold. If they aren't really used, consider scrapping them to make your text shorter, and therefore easier to read. Up to you. Femke (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you say I can remove all measurement conversions at the mm level? Because they are not useful and I would LOVE to remove them. I mean, if something is that small, we'd probably say "less than a fourth of an inch" or "less than an eighth of an inch" and forget precision. So, if I can remove the mm to Imperial conversions, you've made my day. Eewilson (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The MOS gives a few exceptions where conversion is optional rather than obligatory (MOS:CONVERSIONS):
        • "But in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so."
        • If it's excessive (which I think you could argue here), you can also leave it out. The first mention of mm could then have a note explaining the conversion factor. Femke (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's definitely excessive, and at one time I didn't have them for the mm at all, but put them back in during GA review. I didn't think they were useful for the small measurements then, and still don't. So I have begun with leaves. If you are there, you can go look at that to see if it will work. Symphyotrichum lateriflorum#Leaves. Eewilson (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, they are all done except in the section Symphyotrichum lateriflorum#Cultivars, which has a few mm measurements of the widths of flower heads because they came from the Royal Horticultural Society website which is in the UK. I thought the conversions for the cultivar flower heads should stay before, and still do, because this section is less about the botany and more about the gardening... what do you think? I can change them, no sweat. Let me know. Eewilson (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Those convert pretty well except for 'Daisy Bush' which is a troublesome one at 20 mm wide. Sigh. Eewilson (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            For consistency, I would delete those conversions too. Femke (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            Done. Eewilson (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hair is usually in vertical lines, particularly on the inflorescence branches . I don't know if this means they are grouped in a line, or they are themselves straight. Femke (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It means they grow in lines vertically along the stem and branches.... I could change it to something closer to that? Eewilson (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I changed it to this, but I'm not sure it's much better. See what you think. "The hair usually grows in vertical lines, particularly on the inflorescence branches." Eewilson (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

  • American-asters -> You sure there should be a hyphen there?
    • It's in the source from gobotany (I wouldn't do it, but the source did). Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did a bit of a Google, and couldn't find another source using a hyphen. I assume it's just a typo, so let's not repeat that here :). Femke (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not a typo for that website and the Symphyotrichum species, but it's possible they made it up with the hyphen. I'll see if I can find a better source that uses it without a hyphen. Eewilson (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, so I removed it from the "sometimes called American-asters" part for the genus, but kept it as one of the common names for the species ("calico American-aster") with citation to Native Plant Trust (gobotany) Eewilson (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • two-and-a-half years -> pretty sure there should not be hyphens there.
  • infraspecies? Maybe start the paragraph with a short sentence on what an infraspecies is.
    • I'll look into it. Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about these two intro sentences: An infraspecies is a taxon below the species rank. It can be a subspecies, variety, or form, and a species can have multiple infraspecies.? I need to find a citation, but that's my proposed addition. Eewilson (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, more like this: An infraspecies is a taxon below the species rank. It can be a subspecies, variety, subvariety, form, or subform, and a species can have multiple infraspecies. Eewilson (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Works. Femke (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I changed it and added a source. I added a quote in the source using ellipses and tried to follow MOS:ELLIPSIS. Could you double check? FN31. Eewilson (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word aster was used to describe a star-like flower as early as 1542 in German physician and botanist Leonhart Fuchs' book De historia stirpium commentarii insignes. -> Difficult to parse. "The word aster was used to describe a star-like flower as early as 1542 in De historia stirpium commentarii insignes, a book by the German physician and botanist Leonhart Fuchs'". Femke (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Ecology

  • "Symphyotrichum lateriflorum is considered a weed species in Canada and the United States, but, say Canadian botanists Jerry G. Chmielewski and John C. Semple, "probably the least weedy of the weedy aster species in Canada."" Had to read this sentence three times before it made sense. Can it be split? Maybe into: ""Symphyotrichum lateriflorum is considered a weed species in Canada and the United States. It is not considered a noxious weed in either country. Canadian botanists Jerry G. Chmielewski and John C. Semple called it "probably the least weedy of the weedy aster species in Canada."" Femke (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • haha - makes perfect sense to me, but yeah, you're right. I'll fix. Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • pre-settlement natural community?
    • It's a thing in the Americas, particularly used in ecological-speak circles referring to North America, or the US - the way a plant and animal community was before Europeans came in and wiped it all away. There are some ecosystems left called "pre-settlement natural communities" - basically same as the next bullet point... Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • remnant natural areas? I'd prefer explanation rather than a wikilink.
    • I'll see what I can do for this one and the previous one. Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, try this and if you have even better ideas, let me know:
"S. lateriflorum has coefficients of conservatism (C-value) in the Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) that range from 1 to 10 depending on evaluation region. The lower the C-value, the higher tolerance the species has for disturbance. In the case of a low C-value, there is lesser likelihood that the plant is growing in an undisturbed or remnant habitat with native flora and fauna. For example, in the Atlantic coastal pine barrens of Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island, S. lateriflorum has been given a C-value of 1, meaning its presence in locations of that ecoregion provides little or no confidence of a remnant habitat. In contrast, in the Dakotas, S. lateriflorum has a C-value of 10, meaning its populations there are not weedy and are restricted to only remnant habitats which have a very low tolerance to environmental degradation."
—Eewilson (talk) 07:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • An adaptive mechanism of S. lateriflorum is its flower heads "go to sleep" at night. -> "As an adaptive mechanism, its flower heads "go to sleep" at night"
  • It has been surmised that this is to protect and preserve the pollen within -> "This may help protect and preserve the pollen within"?
  • Overall, reproduction is jargon-heavy. Possible to make it easier?
    • hmm... I'll see. Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Femkemilene: Could you take a look at the two paragraphs at Symphyotrichum lateriflorum#Florets? It is where the sexual reproduction terms are introduced, also with some jargon but with Wikilinks. That and the Reproduction section are consistent in term usage (or should be). While we don't have to educate the reader about plant reproduction in this article, I was still hoping to hit on how it works in this plant (which is how it works for the entire genus). I am not sure there are layperson's terms for pistil, style, stigma, stamen, anther, and filiments, and explaining each part may be out of scope or tangential. How can I resolve this conundrum? Suggestions welcomed. Eewilson (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cleaned up jargon from 2nd paragraph of Reproduction. I think it may be better. Still looking at others. Eewilson (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you think a microscopic image of stigma and style would help? I could also add a better description. Something like this, which comes from the article Gynoecium.

Or better yet, I could derive some content from this (minus the floral diagrams), which comes from the Asteraceae article.

Eewilson (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        • 2nd paragraph is now high-quality text!
        • I'm struggling with The disk floret's stigma remains closed while pollen remains on the style, but after it has been collected and carried off, the style begins to split, opening so that the disk floret ovary becomes accessible to receive pollen from another plant.. You use the word remain twice. I find this sentence very difficult to parse. I think it's a relatively simple concept you try to convey here. Femke (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • When you can't avoid jargon, you can always simplify sentence structure, so that people only have to rack their brains for one thing at a time.
        • Another thing nice for lay readers, but not too distracting for more expert readers is to contrast the reproduction with a normal, if such a normal exists. What is unique about this genus?
        • Pictures always help, but feel free to do what you think is best. The first one may be too close-up to give lay readers a feeling for what it is. Femke (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pollinators & Pests are easy to understand :). Femke (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'm fading for now. Need a nap, and I'll get back to it a bit later. I have some diagrams we can try. I'll remove the rest of the conversions from mm later. Not sure about removing the diploid, etc. Have to sleep on that. I'm trying to think of a reason to keep and a reason to remove and I got nothing. Nothing but fried. Later... Eewilson (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not suggesting removing the word diploid. It's too cool a fact to remove it. It just needs a tid bit of simplification. Have a good nap. Close to supporting. Femke (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should have said, "Good luck with the nap." No luck. I misread – you were suggesting I change the word cytotypes to something simpler? That makes sense. I'm not even sure if I fully know what it means. :) Eewilson (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Finally got some sleep. I'll try to implement the rest of the things tonight with the hopes it will be ready for you to give it a good look Sunday, or when you can. Eewilson (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Femkemilene: In all its glory, available once again for your reading pleasure, the article. The latest changes might be my most exceptional plain and easily understood Wikipedia writing to date. There is a new diagram in Symphyotrichum lateriflorum#Fruit with a See also there to the Symphyotrichum lateriflorum#Reproduction section which has rewritten text and two more new diagrams. Here is the link for the diffs to guide you. All suggestions always welcomed, or if not, you will never know.
    Still a bit confused on the change you want in the DNA section. Please elaborate on what you mean so I know for sure.
    —Eewilson (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Brilliantly done! It was a pleasure working with you. I've directly changed a few bits in the text, see whether you like it. Femke (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Your tweaks look great. I put the x=8 bit in parentheses after saying "base number of eight chromosomes" like this: "Symphyotrichum lateriflorum has a base number of eight chromosomes (x = 8)." I think it works. You really did a great job at this review, and I will be a better writer because of it. Eewilson (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Was having a convo with Peter coxhead on the talk page for Infraspecific name (see Talk:Infraspecific name#Needs work to actually define "infraspecies"). When adding the sentence regarding the meaning of infraspecies, I discovered (or rediscovered) that it redirected to Infraspecific name. Not quite the same thing. So I posed the comment and he answered. His comments made me decide to go straight with Varieties and just put the explanation of Infraspecies in an efn at the one time we come to that word in var. hirsuticaule. Just a little last minute change... Eewilson (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All done now?[edit]

@FAC coordinators: this article has had some superb reviewers! Anyone else needed or are we finished? :) Eewilson (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article has so many images. Maybe remove those that aren't necessary? 61.205.249.123 (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow this has managed not to collect a first-timer's source to text spot check. I shall add it to requests. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild I figured it just slipped through and that you'd catch it. I'm just waiting :) Eewilson (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks — Pass[edit]

Version reviewed — this

  • Ref#1 — OK for first two uses. For the statement "NatureServe lists Symphyotrichum lateriflorum as Secure (G5) worldwide and Critically Imperiled (S1) in Kansas and Nebraska." — I see NatureServe listing it S1 in Kansas, but not in Nebraska. Am I missing anything? (link)
    • It was augmented by ref #39, but for clarity I moved ref #1 for the global part and used #39 (var. lateriflorum) for the states. Eewilson (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#3 — OK for all 9 uses, including the map. (link)
  • Ref#9 — OK, as the image matches. (link; direct link)
  • Ref#15 — OK for all 4 uses.
    • OK for page no. 29 (link)
    • OK for page no. 30, but for the statement "As the ray floret is blooming, the stigma at the top of the style splits into two lobes to allow pollen to access the ovary", I'll suggest adding page no. 31 in the range, both the pages have the content. (link for 30; link for 31)
  • Ref#19 — OK (link)
  • Ref#27 — OK (link)
  • Ref#40 — OK (link)
  • Ref#44 — OK (link)
  • Ref#52 — I don't understand Latin, but the term "costâ subtùs hirsutissimâ" seem to be in the book on that page number, so I'll AGF on foreign language. (link)
  • Ref#58 — OK (link)
  • Ref#67 — I don't understand Latin, nor do I understand French sorry!, but the term "Aster horizontalis" and "ramuli horizontales", both seem to be on that page number, so I'll AGF on foreign language. (link)
  • Ref#73 — OK (link)
  • Ref#85 — OK (link)
  • Ref#98 — OK (link)
  • Ref#101 — OK (link)
  • Ref#103 — OK (link)
  • Ref#111 — OK (link)
  • Ref#116 — OK (link)
  • Ref#121 — OK (link)
  • Ref#137 — OK (link)

@Eewilson – Overall, spot-checks looks great. Just clarification needed on a few points. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh.Singh I think I got them. Thank you! Eewilson (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for spot-checks. Any review here would be appreciated. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Symphyotrichum_lateriflorum/archive1&oldid=1054803079"