Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia epica

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:52, 24 February 2007.

[edit] Banksia epica

Another WP:BANKSIA masterpiece. Hesperian 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support (as co-nominator and article co-contributor). Hesperian 00:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support co-contributor, Gnangarra 00:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - really nice article, but the wording could be improved; for example:
  1. The first European to sight B. epica may have been the explorer Edward John Eyre,[4] who recorded sighting "stunted specimens" of Banksia as he was nearing the western edge of the Great Australian Bight on 1 May 1841. Not only is this too wordy ("to sight" isn't terribly idiomatic), but it also (unnecessarily) speculates that the first record of the species was the first sighting of the species.
     • To clarify (per a question from Hesperian), right now the article speculates that Eyre may have been the first European to see the species, based on his record. But unless he was the first European in the range of this species (which may be true, but it isn't clear from the article), it isn't clear to me why the assumption that he was the first European to see the species. Guettarda 02:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Struck per clarification Guettarda
  2. Despite this probable early sighting, the first herbarium collection of B. epica was not made until October 1973 - Despite this probable early sighting is unnecessary. (There are many other places where the wording could be tightened up).
  3. Some of the links to reprints do not appear to go to the right articles (e.g., the Wooler & Wooler article), or go to pages to purchase access to the articles, despite the fact that free abstracts were available (e.g., the Thiele & Ladiges article). Guettarda 02:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks Guettarda. I've taken the liberty of numbering your comments so that I knock them off one by one. I've clarified re: the "speculation" aspect of 1. I'll leave it to you to decide if the "too wordy" aspect is also resolved. Hesperian 02:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Re: 3, some were links to material with restricted access; these have now been removed. Thanks for picking that up. Hesperian 01:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - as one who helped out a bit. You dissin' my copyedits? But seriously, thanks for the feedback, we'll tweak :) cheers Cas Liber 08:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - very well written and informative article. I enjoyed the taxonomic history section and wonder why George didn't name it B. Falconer. He was robbed! —Moondyne 01:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Brillian prose, and all technical information I'd expect to see is there. I did some minor copyedits. --NoahElhardt 06:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• mild support seems a little short to me and could use more refs perhaps, but nice and to the point. Sumoeagle179 02:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • We've got them all, mate; every last one. What isn't here isn't published. Hesperian 03:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.