Talk:Ficus obliqua/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 17:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mine. Should have some time over this weekend to throw at this, and the initial review will follow in a few minutes. J Milburn (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Beginning life as a seedling which grows on other plants (epiphytes) or on rocks (lithophytes)" Seems to be a singular/plural issue here.
- Fixed. Guettarda (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the length of the article, the lead seems a little light.
- lengthened a bit, but article not terribly big. Let me know if you think I should buff it a bit more. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"petioles" Link/description?
- Linked. Guettarda (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"and in fact in the same fruit although they mature at different times." Awkward
- Reworked that a little. Guettarda (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at the second paragraph of "Description"; I've reworked it a bit, and I'm hoping I haven't changed the meaning inadvertently.
- Looks fine to me (FWIW), but I tinkered anyway. Guettarda (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The habitat is warm temperate to moist subtropical rainforest as well as littoral rainforest" Rephrase? Also, explain/link "littoral"?
- littoral is a botanical word for coastal. I am trying to think how to link them but the adjectives sort of cut across each other - the first two relate to climate and the last to location/proximity to water/shore. I am thinking... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"and has been recommended as for amenities planting there for these birds" What does that mean?
- I goofed and left in an extra preposition now removed. However, I realise that I have been responsible for spraying the term about WP. With figs the issue is this - they are fantastic food plants for biodiversity, and incredibly hardy, but unfortunately completely unsuitable for any but the largest garden as their highly aggressive roots invade everything (especially drains/foundations etc.). So in urban design, these are the plants that should be prioritised in urban parks and public gardens. I've tried to look for something to link amenities planting to, but not having much luck. I have to go do some chores in a minute and will muse as I go. Annoyingly public garden redirects to garden (and oh does that need some work (groan)) or maybe one of the links at greenspace but none of them look a great fit at first glance. Similarly urban park... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Leaves of Ficus obliqua serve as a food source for the larvae of the butterfly species the Common Crow (Euploea core),[16] the No-brand Crow (Euploea alcathoe),[17] and the geometer moth (Scopula epigypsa)." Inconsistency with caps of common names. I know birds are a little different, but I don't think moths and butterflies should be treated differently!
- agreed. inadvertent non-alignment now aligned. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The thrips species" Is "thrips" singular? Or should it be "The thrip species"?
- Thrips is like ~~sheeps~~ sheep. Guettarda (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is in the category Category:Drought-tolerant trees, but this isn't mentioned in the article.
- Actually I scrubbed that cat. Although it is more drought tolerant than other rainforest trees, I am sure it comes nowhere in the vicinity of, say, Acacia or cactus spp. I think we might need to have a think and redefine on that category. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Koreshoff, Dorothy and Vita" "Vita"? Also, differently formatted.
- Fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 21 has the author names formatted differently to the others
- As does #20. Fixed. Guettarda (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check the date formatting in the references
- Ok, I've changed this myself. J Milburn (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Ratcliffe, David & Patricia" Is that usual?
- Fixed. all these damned husband and wife teams writing books..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's some inconsistency with the capitals in the reference titles, but that's not too much of an issue for GAC.
- converted all titles to title case. I added some of these a long time ago... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally a really nice article. I ended up getting a little bogged down in reference formatting, but that's not the end of the world. Certainly something to think about if this is going to FAC, though. J Milburn (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah, it's more of a practice run for the big guns, Ficus rubiginosa and the iconic Ficus macrophylla', and came together really nicely and succinctly. The others need quite a bit more fine-tuning but could be really great articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the nominator, but I think I can fix/answer a few of these. Guettarda (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looking through the article again, I am now happy to promote. I will, however, leave a few closing thoughts- take them or leave them.

"the Geometer Moth (Scopula epigypsa)." Seeing as you're referring to the species with the common name of Geometer Moth, it seems strange to link to the family article. Having one blue- and one redlink is misleading.
- agree. I am trying to figure out how to link to the most useful info. I've bluelinked the species but there is more info on the family page, so have inserted the word "species" to split and show there are two destinations. I feel a link to the family is useful given the stubby nature of the species link. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The section on the galls isn't worded as well as it could be.
- I've rejigged the gall bit a bit. Might need more finetuning at FAC. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Ficus obliqua is pollinated by two species of fig wasp—Pleistodontes greenwoodi and P. xanthocephalus.[21] The assumption that fig species are usually pollinated by just one species of fig wasp has been challenged by the discovery of cryptic species complexes among what was previously thought to be single species of fig wasps.[22]" Perhaps switch these two sentences? It seems strange to say that there's only one wasp for each fig, then list two wasps for this fig.
- Yep, makes more sense if sentences switched Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Australian Plant Name Index (APNI), IBIS database"- Does this need to be in italics? How about "Australian Tropical Rainforest Plants Edition 6 (RFK6)"? "HOSTS – a Database of the World's Lepidopteran Hostplants"? The MoS is a little ambiguous on this, but the way I look at it is that we certainly wouldn't italicise "Wikipedia" or "Wikimedia Commons", so why are we italicising these other sites? (Sure, if they're based on a book or newspaper, but if they're just a website/database...)
- Dunno - it is the "work=" paramenter in the cite web template. Given it is the oeuvre the webpage comes from....not sure what to do here... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The way I do it (and I've converted Sasata to my way of thinking) is place both in the publisher parameter. Not pretty code, but it means that it's formatted correctly, which is the important thing. J Milburn (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, a great article as usual, and I look forward to seeing more! J Milburn (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]