Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia integrifolia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Banksia integrifolia

A comprehensive and well-written article on an important Australian tree. I can't see any way to improve it. WP:BANKSIA self-nom. Hesperian 04:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support as co-nominator. Hesperian 04:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support as co-nominator Gnangarra 04:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I've looked the article over, and am deeply impressed by its depth of coverage. Wouldn't have thought that there'd be so much to say about a species of tree that it would warrant a sub-article on the taxonomy alone. Well referenced, well written. Support. Fieari 04:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support as co-nominator. I feel it fulfils all criteria. The article has been thoroughyl analysed and is comprehensive and fulfils wiki-style critera that I can see.Cas Liber 05:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The words gnarlier and rangy caught my eye as they sounded a bit un-encyclopaedic at first but I've checked my dictionaries and see that I was wrong yet again. A very nice piece of work worthy of any encyclopaedia. — Moondyne 05:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support; looks great to me, though I know nothing of plants. The leading sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the lead is a bit awkward to me, however. I assume that the comma is necessary between "published" and "by" (that is, that others besides Linnaeus published the other three of the "first four"), so I'm not exactly sure what can be done about it. If there's a synonym for "published", that could be used effectively to reorganize the sentence to something like this: "...collected by Sir Joseph Banks in 1770, and, published in 1782 Carolus Linnaeus the Younger, was one of the first four species to be <insert synonym of published here>." Not a big deal; just something that could stand an improvement. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 06:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's better now. What do you think? Hesperian 06:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Excellent. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 16:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: The lead seems weak and disjointed, with oddities like: "Banksia integrifolia, commonly known as Coast Banksia, is a species of tree in the plant genus Banksia." - Do we really need to spell out the meaning of Binomial nomenclature in the first sentence? Shouldn't we be talking about the plant itself? I'd lose it or add it to the later section about Linnaeus. There's other instances of poor phrasing as well: "Because of its wide range, it would have had a name in a number of indigenous languages; for example, it was known as Birrna in the language of the Gunai people of Gippsland." - don't say "would have" about known facts. It *had* a name in a number of indigenous languages.

The section beginning "B. integrifolia's placement within Banksia may be summarised as follows:" would look a lot better as a side box, and, on the whole, it just needs another copyedit. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

response the use of would have is more correct as the following sentence in the article states that -- Unfortunately, most indigenous names are now lost... Gnangarra 10:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer "had", though. less weasely, and the explanation is fast enough. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Adam, four points: (1) I agree with your comment re: redundancy in the first sentence, and will address it. (2) I agree with Gnangarra that "would have" is more appropriate, as it correctly indicates that our sources are largely speculating on this point. (3) I tried the sidebox idea when we took Banksia brownii through FA, and it didn't look as good as i thought it would. (4) Tony1 has undertaken to give this another copyedit as soon as he can find the time. Hesperian 12:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Weak Support, then. I probably should have said "Weak Oppose" anyway - it IS a very good article, just seemed to need a couple tweaks. I've changed the names section a bit - I think the major problem was that a specific example was given in a place where it made the rest of the commentary seem odd. With it removed, it works. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Support: All issues addressed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support meets all requirements. The subject is very well explained.--cj | talk 13:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - looks good to me. Trebor 17:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, excellent and comprehensive article. - Mailer Diablo 18:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, an excellent, well written, comprehensive article --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support A fantastic article from a fantastic group of editors in Wikipedia:Wiki project Banksia Todd661 11:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. How many Banksias are left to do? Can we have some other plants, too? - Samsara (talk · contribs) 19:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• there are 76 species of Banksia, only Banksia brownii is FA, so including this nomination theres 75 species still to go. Then there are the other taxonomical levels, botanist, illistraters, publications etc so about 100 articles. Gnangarra 00:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - excellently written and researched article. It is informative, even to a botany novice like me. I never knew there was so much to know about Banksias! Well done. JROBBO 03:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)