Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of the largest genera of flowering plants/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 22:06, 11 November 2011 [1].

List of the largest genera of flowering plants[edit]

List of the largest genera of flowering plants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Stemonitis (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it satisfies the criteria. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Don't start with "This list..." - we haven't done that for a while, after all we don't start articles with "This article..." do we?
  • Consider merging the lead and the Background (right now the lead is too short per WP:LEAD).
  • "3000" ->"3,000" (and others).
  • Croton is a dab link.
  • No row scopes?
  • There are no row headers, so scopes aren't required, as far as I understand it. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alliaceae redirects to Allioideae... should I be worried about that?
  • "spp" forgive my ignorance, what does that mean?
  • Short for "species" (plural), but we probably don't need to abbreviate here – all are now written out in full. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not done. Out of context, text like "Anthurium species" suggests an (unidentified) species of Anthurium, rather than *all* the species of Anthurium. It's a result of the plural and singular forms of "species" being identical, I suppose. I think it's better with the "List of..." prefix; it's not like we're particularly short of space. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: (feel free to intersperse responses). Note that I know next to nothing about the topic and have not read any similar lists to compare this one against. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I, too, am unaware of any directly comparable lists. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are 57 such genera" What does "such" refer to in this sentence? The word can probably just be removed, but if it is intended to refer to something it should be made more clear instead. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed. That was a relic of a previous wording; thanks for spotting it. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You use both ">700" and "500+". If these mean the same thing, they should be in the same format (I'd prefer the "+", but either would work). –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Standardised to "+"; the difference in meaning ("500+" could be exactly 500, whereas ">500" must be at least 501) is so small as to be just about meaningless. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps note in the prose when the numbers are current as of. Presumably new species will be discovered as time goes on which would increase these numbers. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-worded (also covers following point). Actually, a larger effect comes from taxonomic changes (i.e. people lumping or splitting genera), although a fair number of species will undoubtedly be added as time passes. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "according to Frodin (2004)" -- Who? This guy isn't mentioned anywhere else in the prose. Also, the (2004) could probably be removed since it is in the reference. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which reference are the numbers coming from? –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The appropriate reference is now cited at the head of the table. I think that makes it clear. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the "rank" column really necessary? When sorting, the "species" column will produce the same sort order, and the "rank" column gives the list, in my mind, a feeling like it is some competition between the genera to have the most species. Perhaps remove the "rank" column and move "species" over into its place. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's useful, if only to prevent readers having to count manually. I may be able to see that Senecio is a big genus, for instance, but I don't want to have to count 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 just to find out it's the tenth largest, if I could have simply read it off in a different column. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments: –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first image could probably use a citation in the caption. Additionally Agamospecies is a redirect to Apomixis; is Agamospecies the correct word to use, using the definition by Göte Turesson mentioned in the target article? –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The same fact is cited in the main text, not far from the image, so I don't believe the citation need be repeated in the caption. Agamospecies and apomixis do (currently) lead to the same article, but the two concepts are not identical. It would be possible, and even desirable, for separate articles to develop on the taxa and the process which produces them (analagous to species and speciation which basically cover non-apomictic taxa). Even before that happens, the links are not broken, and it seems preferable not to try to "fix" them. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The captions for all the other images should be reworded to say, e.g., "at least X species" rather than ">X species", to make the prose flow better. Symbols are fine in tables, but not ideal when used in prose. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be good to say who David Frodin is. What was his occupation? Why is he qualified to make an analysis on this topic? The article Philosophia Botanica refers to him (assuming it is the same David Frodin) as a botanist; if this is accurate, just adding that word before his name in this article would resolve this issue. (generally I don't request details like this for reference authors, but since his analysis is the only real source for the table I think it would be an important addition). –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Good job fixing up the article. I feel this list now passes WP:WIAFL. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Only thing in the list that feels a little unusual to me is that the section name of the list area is indeed "List". It sounds a little plain; I'd rather see something descriptive like Largest genera. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. I was unsure myself what to title that part. "Largest genera" is a distinct improvement; thank you. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Parutakupiu (talk) 12:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • "... and this disparity in genus sizes..."
    • Done.
  • I'd link "taxon" rather than "taxonomist" (which redirects to "taxonomy")
    • Done. I have left the link to taxonomist, as I see no harm in its inclusion, but I have added the link to taxon as requested.
  • Place a comma after genus in "... were united into a single genus while plants of ..."
    • Done.
  • Don't use so many times the same reference. If a sequence of sentences can be referenced by the same source, you can place the ref only at the very end. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. I reference every sentence during writing so that text can be rearranged without losing the references. Now that the article is in a fairly stable state, I can see that that might not be necessary. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • I know TRM mentioned it before but I think you need row scopes, the genus is the row header. That's what I can accrue from the guidelines. NapHit (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I buy that argument. Row scopes added. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support meets the criteria, great list. NapHit (talk) 22:56, 4 November 2011 (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_list_candidates/List_of_the_largest_genera_of_flowering_plants/archive1&oldid=1089076814"