Jump to content

Talk:Symphyotrichum lateriflorum/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Dracophyllum (talk · contribs) 11:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Hi all, saw that this had been sitting as a GAN since January and so decided to step in. Note that I'm not a super experienced editor (See user page for details) but do have some knowledge in the subject of plants having written many articles on them. This will also be my first GA Review so please tell me if I'm doing something wrong. Given that I am quite busy at the moment I probably won't get to this for around a week or so.

Thanks Dracophyllum 11:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you, @Dracophyllum:! I was reading the article after 2 months and saw a couple of typos, so I will correct them. I'm busy this week as well, so the timing is fine. I try to be very responsive. Eewilson (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. @Eewilson: Images have mostly the correct licences but the link for the range map source should be https://plants.usda.gov/home/plantProfile?symbol=SYLA4, the CC for Symphyotrichum lateriflorum (15366184652) cropped.jpg should be CC-BY-2.0, Aster lateriflorus Lady in Black 1zz.jpg no longer exists on the web since zipcodezoo was taken down. If you can find an archive that would be good but otherwise it doesn't matter (I think). Thanks, Dracophyllum 01:02, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dracophyllum: Thanks for the comments! The link for the USDA PLANTS Database are automatically added through the PLANTS template, which is what I'm using for the source citation. I checked the link it generates and the link you provided, and they both lead to what looks like a recently-introduced format change, and the page, although the address in the URL bar is different, looks the same. So I don't know that I want to stop using the PLANTS template and use the Cite template, but I can if you think I should. It might be more appropriate for the PLANTS template URL to be changed by someone who maintains templates.
License for Symphyotrichum lateriflorum (15366184652) cropped.jpg corrected to CC-BY-2.0.
I can't find an archive on archive.org for the 'Lady in Black' image Aster lateriflorus Lady in Black 1zz.jpg. The user page for the uploader says he is deceased. I changed the image for the cultivar to one with the original on Flickr which is still up and has the appropriate license, and which is already on Commons (File:134-49_Aster_lateriflorus_var._horizontalis_'Lady_in_Black'.jpg). I don't know what the Commons policy is in a case like this since the license can no longer be verified nor the uploader (and presumably photographer) can no longer be contacted. Thanks! —Eewilson (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson: For me the old link just redirects to https://plants.usda.gov/home and the new link goes to the right page. I'm not sure what the policy for the "Lady in Black" is, but using the flickr one is definitely better. Dracophyllum 23:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: Regarding the PLANTS database link in the citation template PLANTS, should one of us just bring it up on the Plants Project page? Regarding the image: I changed it to the Flickr one. Let me know what else you see and I'll respond as soon as I can. Thanks! —Eewilson (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson Can't you just use a normal citation in visual editor using the better link? Dracophyllum 01:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: Oh sure! No problem. I'll get on that tonight. (I don't use visual editor - just the source code editor. I have a programming background.) —Eewilson (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: I made the update to the plants.usda.gov citation now using Cite web. —Eewilson (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson Excellent, just one last thing on this - could you change the link on the range photo to the new one as well. Thanks, Dracophyllum 02:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: That link is now corrected. I also checked some (not all) urls in the References and found a few dead links, so I marked them dead instead of live so they will use the archive.org link I made at the time. —Eewilson (talk) 02:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. @Eewilson: (Subtitles)

1. The main image-related issue in this article is with regards to MOS:CAPSUCCINCT. You don't need to include information in pictures which is already described in the text and captions shouldn't be several lines long. For example, the caption:
"Microscopic photo of the involucre of a flower head of S. lateriflorum plant showing phyllary detail. The green zone of each phyllary is shaped like a lens. The inner phyllaries are much longer and linear-shaped than the outer ones, and visible on the edges of each phyllary are white-looking translucent margins."
Could be shortened to just:
"Microscopic photo of the involucre of a flower head of S. lateriflorum, showing phyllary detail.
Since most of the information regarding the involucre is already in the body. Also, you don't need to put the licensing of the image, since they can see that when they click into it.
Images whose captions need shortening:
Calico aster 29 September 2020 - 01.jpg
Symphyotrichum lateriflorum 25179771.jpg
Symphyotrichum lateriflorum 25179760.jpg
Symphyotrichum lateriflorum 25179708.jpg
INat-51031397 Symphyotrichum lateriflorum disc florets macro.jpg
LinnaeusSpPl1753Description.png
There may be others that need shortening too. I'm unsure about the roots - is that level of detail needed? Maybe, since it's not in the body? But in that case you should just put it in the body if you have anything on it. It's also possible that they fit into this line in the MOS: "Galleries may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." But I'm not sure. Also, don't forget that images need to be on the right hand side of the page when possible and avoid MOS:SANDWICH. Thanks! Dracophyllum 06:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: Okay, I'll take a look at these, but it will likely be after the weekend. Just a note about MOS:SANDWICH, I had tested the page on multiple browser window widths and mobile devices, with several font sizes, and didn't find any significant sandwiching issues. I kept that in mind when placing the images and before nominating for GA, but MOS:SANDWICH is not in and of itself a requirement for GA.
Regarding MOS:CAPSUCCINCT, I'll take a look at that again. Are you looking at the length of the captions, as you said, "Images whose captions need shortening..."? The MOS reads:
Succinctness is using no superfluous or needless words. It is not the same as brevity, which is using a relatively small number of words.
So, changing them just to be shorter may be out of the scope of MOS:CAPSUCCINCT.
You write, "Also, you don't need to put the licensing of the image, since they can see that when they click into it." Which image(s) on this one?
Can you refer me to the part in the MOS where you quote about galleries? Not sure if this is a GA requirement.
You had asked me to provide feedback since this is your first review. A Good Article is not a Featured Article, nor is it intended to be a perfect article. It only needs to meet the GA Criteria. This article goes beyond that, but it's not perfect, I'm sure, and doesn't have to be that in order to get to GA.
Additionally, I'm rethinking whether TEMPLATE:PLANTS for the citation should be put back. You had mentioned that when you clicked on the link in the citation, it took you to the home page? Maybe go to the page for TEMPLATE:PLANTS and see if that happens for you for the examples as well. It does not for me. And if the base of the links that are built using the template needs to be changed, that should be done at the template level, which is beyond the scope of the GA review.
Thanks!! —Eewilson (talk) 08:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson: Thanks for the feedback, I actually never looked at the citation since I was only focusing on the link in the commons image which did take you to the home page. The ones on template:plants take me to the plant pages so it's possible the only culprit was the link on the commons image - sorry. You mention on LinnaeusSpPl1753Description.png that it is "Public domain on Biodiversity Heritage Library. Latin," which probable (?) isn't necessary. I take your point on sandwiching, but you could argue that repeating the features of the involucre in the caption is within the scope of MOS:CAPSUCCINCT, because "More than three lines of text in a caption may be distracting; instead, further information can be provided in the article body." Although it's totally up to discussion if you feel it should be kept. Galleries also aren't in the criteria - you're right - so forget that. Thanks Dracophyllum 08:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: Great! I'll take a look at those captions within the next few days, possibly next week because I have an out of town visitor right now.
I'll revert the citation change for the PLANTS database.
Ah, yes. The licensing on the image for the Linnaeus protologue. Gotcha there. I'll remove that sentence about the licensing.
You had asked if that level of detail about the roots is necessary and I forgot to touch on that. I went back and forth regarding that. Because the primary identifying feature in the famiy Asteraceae is the phyllaries/involucres, I've found that it's not so easy to find information on roots, at least for Symphyotrichum species. Basically, for Symphyotrichum lateriflorum, it's a caudex sometimes with short rhizomes. Well, I didn't want to just say that. So, I thought for thoroughness, using illustrations of various root systems for this species might be helpful. I tried just having the images in standard format, using a table, using a bulleted list with the images, and using a gallery, and decided the gallery worked the best. I'll look at the captions and see what can be worked into the text instead.
Thank you! —Eewilson (talk) 08:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: Captions have been adjusted for succinctness. I have placed the detailed caption information in the Alt fields for the images as well as on the actual image caption in Commons. Hopefully, this will take care of the issues and let us move on, but if you see anything I forgot about with them, please let me know. —Eewilson (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


3. @Eewilson: a) The article is broad in its coverage and has the main aspects needed for a plant article: Description, Etymology, Taxonomy, Distribution and Habitat, Ecology, Uses, and Ethnobotany

b) At 41,000 Characters it has around 41kB of readable prose which is acceptable under WP:SIZERULE and doesn't require division. The level of detail in the description section roughly matches another GA Hypericum sechmenii as well as Asplenium bradleyi, though plant GA's differ in their length in this section. Possibly the varieties section in Taxonomy is too detailed but I'm not sure - thoughts? Dracophyllum 01:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dracophyllum: When I was getting a pre-GA review by Casliber, they said on the Talk page, "...annoying having so many damn varieties but there you go." I thought about another page for infraspecies, but I don't think they are notable enough for that, and because we generally don't do that with plants. —Eewilson (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did the GA review for Hypericum sechmenii. It's a relatively newly-discovered species and little is available on it which explains the article's length. Symphyotrichum lateriflorum has been a confusing species to botanists for centuries, leading to a ridiculous number of names and varieties which may or may not be actual varieties, but because they are still accepted by some, I feel we need to cover them. If you have some ideas of what could be removed, let me know. —Eewilson (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson Yeah they probably should all be included, passed this section. Dracophyllum 02:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dracophyllum: I just thought I'd jump in and again say thank you for doing this review! I know it's a big article and there is a lot of information. —Eewilson (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4. @Eewilson: (Reliable sources)

So most of your sources are of excellent quality but are few aren't. This is up to discussion but you probably shouldn't cite nursery websites because that breaks WP:SELFPUB. Dracophyllum 10:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dracophyllum: Okay, I'll have a look and see what can be done. —Eewilson (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dracophyllum: I'm going to remove the non-English language vernacular names (Casliber thought they may be questionable), which will eliminate some selfpub references. Still looking. —Eewilson (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dracophyllum: Okay, I have done quite a bit to eliminate the nursery website self-published sources, but not all have been removed. It is a big chunk of cultivar information. For some, I just removed the information, which may have been extraneous anyway. Here is a link (if it helps) to show the comparison of how it was about 24 hours ago with now: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Symphyotrichum_lateriflorum&type=revision&diff=1026751352&oldid=1026557187

—Eewilson (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson
  • Museums are reputable, though "Crondon Museum" is just a blog it seems. (https://frankwmcarr.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/site-review-cronodon-com/). Much better would be to use the sources listed at the bottom if you can find them somewhere on the internet: Cummins, C., Seale, M., Macente, A. et al. A separated vortex ring underlies the flight of the dandelion. Nature 562: 414–418 (2018) doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0604-2. Desrochers, A. M., Bain, J. F. and Warwick, S. I. 1988. The Biology of Canadian weeds. 89. Carduus nutans L. and Carduus acanthoides L. Can. J. Plant Sci. 68: 1053-1068. Sheldon, J. C. and Burrows, F.M. 1973. The dispersal effectiveness of the achene-pappus units of selected compositae in steady winds with convection. New Phytol. 72: 665-675.
  • The problem, it seems, with information on nurseries is of course WP:SPS, but also that usually the only information of the cultivars is that listed on the shop website. Perhaps we should start a section on the WP:PLANTS talk page?
  • TuinSeizoen is probs a little more reputable since it's a magazine - though still not the best ofc
    • Missouri Botanical Garden: Good
    • Chicago Botanic Garden: Good
    • Native Plant Trust: Pretty Good
    • North Carolina Native Plant Society: Bad - Written by a society so basically just a blog - check the Links section maybe.
    • (https://plants.ces.ncsu.edu/plants/symphyotrichum-lateriflorum/ seems like a good source)
    • Illinois Wildflowers: Probs Bad - blog but written by potentially an expert (?), though I'm not sure.
    • Minnesota Wildflowers: Trickier - sponsered by a botanical society and a gov organisation, would use maybe sparingly.
    • Royal Horticultural Plant Society Plant Finder - Technically it's just a blog but this society is a pretty big deal so I'm probably gonna give it a pass.
  • John C. Semple's website fits perfectly into WP:SPS and can be used. That's all for now Dracophyllum 12:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dracophyllum:

  • I'm going to remove 'White Lovely' because information on it is not locatable anyplace but Digging Dog Nursery and two blogs that reference Digging Dog Nursery.
  • I will remove references to details about 'Lovely' and just keep that it is in the RHS Plant Finder.
  • Looking at alternatives or answers for the others in question...

—Eewilson (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the rest of the questionable sources, I took the easier way out and removed them when they were duplicates, or in one or two cases, removed the information. I think I've covered all that you were questioning. Please let me know if I missed any.

—Eewilson (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson
Citations looking much better,
1) Curious as to the source of the data on Nature serve. They claim it is updated by "hundreds of natural heritage program scientists and other collaborators," but this seems a vague - wondering whether you think it's a good source?
@Dracophyllum: We use it as an option in the Taxobox for conservation information. I didn't question its quality or reliability, so my opinion is that it's a good source for conservation status, which is what I'm using it for. I wonder why you question it? —Eewilson (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2) gracillariidae.net seems ok sponsored by a gov thing - might be actually kinda better than using the individual refs due to WP:PRIMARY.
3) Prairie moon nursery is still used and should probably (?) be removed - I am sure that information can be found in a book - Have a look at some of these books/things: https://archive.org/search.php?query=%22Symphyotrichum%20lateriflorum%22&sin=TXT
@Dracophyllum: I have both of Picton's books, and only the info on propagation by division is in one of them for the species. I'll check other references for info on seed sowing and gardening. I personally trust Prairie Moon Nursery's growing information, but that's not good enough. —Eewilson (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4) I'm gonna let Perenniculum slide for GA since it's written by a horticultural expert.
5) Otherwise your citations are great and after this I can move on to checking for OR.
Dracophyllum 03:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: Okay, I eliminated the nursery source and replaced with a book from 2008. Citations should be all done now (I hope)! —Eewilson (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, good work @Eewilson! Dracophyllum 04:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5. OR / Original Research

@Eewilson:

This next section (OR) will take a while and I'm gonna have to take you up on your offer to give me access to the refs. Best would be if you could send them to me on my Wikipedia email. :) Dracophyllum 04:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dracophyllum: I'll get on that! Some may come tonight (it's night here), and some tomorrow. —Eewilson (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson Cool, for now I'll check the ones I can access - which is like 90%. Dracophyllum 04:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson Did you get my email? Dracophyllum 05:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: I did and I replied. —Eewilson (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson:

  • Name
  • Could you rephrase the specific epithet part to be less similar to the source?
@Dracophyllum: Tried - please check.
  • I would suggest renaming this section to Etymology, though it doesn't really matter
@Dracophyllum: I used Name because it's more about the common name, even though I threw in the etymology part. Someone will probably come along and change it to Etymology at some point :). Like you say - it doesn't really matter.
@Dracophyllum: Fifth paragraph, second column, along with the title of that section "Michaelmas Daisies at Long Ditton," are what I am using to provide a source that the species (in this document, A. diffusus horizontalis) can be called a Michaelmas Daisy. I also had been using it for a small passage about the Michaelmas Daisies in 1898 and how they were called starworts, but decided it was extraneous information. This came from the first paragraph on that source page under the same heading. See revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Symphyotrichum_lateriflorum&oldid=1026640454.
  • Gonna trust you on the latin bit because I can see the relevant words poking out
  • Can you put in a citation comfirming the synonymity of the other plants in Hortus Kewensis?
@Dracophyllum: Those will be covered in the Taxonomy section... hmm. I thought about that and wasn't sure I wanted to go into that here because it's very involved - I mean if I understand what you are saying. I guess a citation from COL showing synonyms would do it. I'll try that. Will also use individual page numbers for the two names from Hort Kew and add the Latin names.

Dracophyllum 05:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changes made and see notes above. —Eewilson (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson:

@Dracophyllum:
  • Description (Sorry for the wait) OR CHECKING IN PROGRESS
  • Where in the first 2 sources does it say its is herbaceous? Otherwise good for OR.
Hmm I would be careful with this idea - there must be one source that says it is herbaceous?

Dracophyllum 11:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. I'll see what I can find. All in the genus are herbaceous. —Eewilson (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: Okay, I think I got that taken care of. Do a diff to see if you wish. I think all that's left is your final word on the conversions (below). —Eewilson (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where in cit 18 does it say its dark and sometimes flexable?

...

  • MOS Checking
  • Link herbaceous
Usually no, but there are no other links here so might as well. Dracophyllum 10:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay —Eewilson (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose has good grammar and spelling and reads fine for someone new to the subject
  • Link "pubescent" and "hirsute"
Haha yeah that would be better Dracophyllum 10:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Variety tenuipes (Though it probably doesn't matter, it just sounded a little weird. Dracophyllum 10:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the abbreviations needed in habitat?
  • Can you reword this? Symphyotrichum lateriflorum is considered a weed species in Canada and the United States, but, say Chmielewski and Semple, "probably the least weedy of the weedy aster species in Canada." Sounds off.
It's just that I don't know who either of them are Dracophyllum 10:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: OH! Okay, how about "Canadian botanists Jerry G. Chmielewski and John C. Semple"? —Eewilson (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better Dracophyllum 19:30, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "obligate (biologically required) outbreeder" Links
Fair enough Dracophyllum 11:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The five (5) , removed (5)
  • In the Flowers, Involucres and phyllaries, and Florets sections you need to use the convert template.
  • Can you be more specific? Do you mean convert all metric to imperial, or always use convert when converting instead of cvt? Or don't do any manual conversions? —Eewilson (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you have already is fine, just use the convert template on the X mm bits - it just makes it easier sometimes. Dracophyllum 11:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I was thinking that coverting tiny mm measurements to imperial was useless, and I'm an American. :) But I can take a look. —Eewilson (talk) 11:10, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how converting the tiny measurements would add value to the article, unless I can do them in fractions instead of decimal points. Isn't there a way to do that using the convert template? Do you know? —Eewilson (talk) 11:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson Yes, see Help:Convert#Fractions: "An output can be expressed with a fraction using |frac=N where N is the denominator. For example, |frac=8 rounds the output to the nearest eighth." There are some examples there :) Dracophyllum 23:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: Excellent!! Now that will add value! :) I'll get right on it. —Eewilson (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dracophyllum: All metric-to-imperial conversions added or changed to fractions for non-whole imperial unit numbers. I hope this does it! —Eewilson (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complies with MOS as far as I can tell

All I need to do now is check for OR and then you should pass :) Dracophyllum 10:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

—Eewilson (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson: @Dracophyllum: Comments and questions in bold

  • Checking for OR and other stuff...
  • Can you change the caption on Symphyotrichum lateriflorum 4a.jpg to "... on a juvenile plant" Done
  • Description is clean of OR checkY Thank you
  • In the history section can you change "and in the A. miser," to and in the A. miser section," or something similar? Done
  • In the Infraspecies section you add a [m] as if you are correcting a typo, but the source doesn't contain a typo. Unless you are moving the "M" to an "m" - is that necessary? It is changing it from uppercase to lowercase
  • In the Infraspecies section you write: "by one or more of" - why do you do this instead of just the relevant sources? On this one, I think I understand what you are asking. It depends on which infraspecies it is as to which source accepts it. I could put them in each subsection, if that is better, but each subsection has the actual source citations. Let me know.
I think it would be fine if you put a word like following in to make it: "Although the following infraspecies are no longer accepted varieties according to COL, they were accepted as of May 2021 by one or more of..." Dracophyllum 01:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph is worded as if it is below the variaties - could you change this? Do you mean the paragraph you referenced in the comment just before this one?
See my comment above, if you add the word following it would be better. Dracophyllum 01:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Variety angustifolium the sentence on the etymology could be better worded and needs a citation. Do you mean better word this sentence: Latin angustus means narrow and folium means foliage or leaves.?
  • In Variety angustifolium I don't think you should bold the common names because they don't refer to the article subject as a whole. Done
  • In Variety angustifolium shouldn't you put the special character "ò" in the: new species he named "Aster agrostifolius which..." bit? He put that in his protologue, but it's not maintained within today's literature that I've seen (see IPNI, for example), so I don't really think so...
Alright fair enough. Dracophyllum 01:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again citation needed for the latin bits Are you sure? :) I link it to Wiktionary (as do I the two in the paragraph above). Is it acceptable to cite Wiktionary as the source, or isn't linking to it enough? Or should I just take those sentences out? Are they necessary?
Hmm maybe, maybe not. Here are some good sources to use though
They do look like good sources, but I don't have copies of either. I suppose I could check my local library, but if you think it's acceptable as is, I'd rather just move on... if that's okay with you. —Eewilson (talk) 04:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok I agree it's a small thing I can move on from it :) Dracophyllum 05:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Variety angustifolium Can you put Wiegand's full name at first to remove any confusion? Done
  • In Variety hirsuticaule and in [2]https://www.ipni.org/n/311661-2/ where does it mention the common names? Well, it looks like I may have moved them and left out the citation for those. I'll find and add.
  • In Variety hirsuticaule latin name a citation needed Same question here about Wiktionary
  • In Variety hirsuticaule I could be wrong but that doesn't look like real german - have you consulted a table like the one on this document? [3]https://www.familysearch.org/wiki/en/img_auth.php/c/ca/German_Gothic_Handwriting_Guide.pdf Hmmm. I'll take a look at this. I don't know German.
  • There were several errors in the German. I used the Guide PDF and corrected them. Google Translate confirmed the translation into English as the same in idea (with slightly different wording) as what I was given from the Wikipedian who helped. I think it's good now. —Eewilson (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Almost right but the german word for plants is Pflanzen but Bflanzen :) Dracophyllum 05:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would make sense! :) I'll fix it. —Eewilson (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Variety horizontale could you be clearer than "since the time of Linnaeus," Done - changed it to since the mid-1700s or I could put mid-18th Century if you think that would be better.
  • Got up to (but haven't done) Variety spatelliforme. Up to this point it looks good checkY Dracophyllum 09:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

—Eewilson (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think should be everything up to this point. —Eewilson (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, now to move on :) checkY Dracophyllum 05:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continued OR checking and other pointless nitpicking. @Eewilson:

  • Rest of taxonomy is clean checkY
  • In the distribution of S. lateriflorum var. hirsuticaule you say that "United States distribution data cannot be found," but you describe its US distribution just before. Do you mean data from some gov source or specific database?
oh haha I guess my american geography is not very good. Disregard my comment. :) Dracophyllum 07:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
:) My geography of other continents is lacking, so no worries! —Eewilson (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont forget you can shorten the binomial name down to S. lateriflorum if you want.
  • You should remove "Studies have shown" in the Reproduction section and change it to: "a 2001 study by blahblah" because the latter phrase is vague and should be avoided. Just removed Studies have shown. Other wise up untill this point looks good checkY
  • On citation 125 the archive links to a different page
oops... I'll fix —Eewilson (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything else looks good. I have to say well done on such an amazing job for such a large topic. I apologise for this long review and thank you for your patience and understanding with my mistakes. Will pass after these things are corrected Happy editing:) Dracophyllum 07:29, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) —Eewilson (talk) 07:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work will promote now

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Symphyotrichum_lateriflorum/GA1&oldid=1028486685"