Talk:Lasthenia conjugens
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Lasthenia conjugens is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
An entry from Lasthenia conjugens appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 1 December 2006. |
 |
 |
Lasthenia conjugens was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: December 7, 2006 |
Contents |
[edit] Recent citings
The source attached to this sentence does not list a date for the sitings :"The Jepson Manual notes that the distribution is limited to the Sacramento Valley, principally Napa and Solano Counties,[4] but this characterization ignores somewhat recent recordings[3] in the other counties listed above. In any case, historically the range has included much of the North Coast, Sacramento Valley, and San Francisco Bay Area as well as the South Coast."
Note that FWS and USFS sitings maps of this nature without dates attached to each siting generally include all historical sitings that are connected to herbaria specimens. It does not mean it is recent, because the map itself is dated "2004." KP Botany 21:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Bay Area
Did you even try the link first? Of course not. See, enter "Bay Area" in the search and it takes the user to the San Francisco Bay Area article, not a disambiguation page. I'll leave editing to you, since you're so quick to revert, and just put my comments on the talk page, then. KP Botany 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- yes, i did try the link and the link itself worked. i simply think the full name of the bay area is appropriate both for international readers (for their context) and for those in other california bay areas, who are easily insulted when we northern californians suggest there is only one "bay area". i also agree with you that the use of "greater" is not useful or needed here. Anlace 04:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Historical sitings
- "In any case, historically the range has included much of the North Coast, Sacramento Valley, and San Francisco Bay Area as well as the South Coast."
- --->What are your sources for "much of the North Coast?" I don't see any CNPS sitings or herbaria listings for Humbold or Del Norte counties. Or Sacramento County, a major county in the Sacramento Valley. Are these listed in the FWS document? KP Botany 21:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Text of article has now been altered to reflect what Jepson says. Anlace 21:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 7, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: The prose is not compelling, for example, botanical terms are used incorrectly and without explanation: "The yellow ray flowers may number six to thirteen petals, and the five to ten millimeter ligules are yellow as well." This implies that the ray flowers are composed of from 6-13 petals. Each ray flower is seen as a "petal" on the head, and has one petal. The link to "ligule" is to a page on a grass ligule, and should be directed, correctly to inflorescence, rather an article about grass ligules. "Inflorescences are characterized by solitary heads, with twelve to eighteen phyllaries fused at their mid length." This is incorrect, the phyllaries are fused "less than half their length." This is a distinguishing characteristic of Lasthenia conjugens, but the statement "fused at their midlength" implies they are fused midway up, and only there." There are numerous additional problems with the description of the flowering heads, which is confused, contradictory and repetitious, plus it is not referenced well enough to follow where the descriptions come from. The anther tips are "anther tips are linear to somewhat ovate" in one sentence and "anther tips manifest as acuminate to triangular," in the very next sentence.
- 2. Factually accurate?: It's hard to tell, in some places, if it is accurate or note because of the prose difficulties, but the description is inaccurate and botanically incorrect (see above). There is no reference to the synonym. "greater San Francisco Bay Area" contradicts its usage, as all the counties listed are Bay Area counties proper, as the link to San Francisco Bay Area clearly shows. The article is referenced to a single diagram from a major document on Vernal Pools which includes a description of the species. The reference should be to the document, with a page number, not a page out of context. The conclusion that the results of the experiment "[imply] that the plant … is merely more successful than its competitors in surviving seasonal inundation" does not follow from the abstract referenced, as the refernced abstract does not indicate that the investigator compared seasonal inundation in L. conjugens and "its competitors," but rather the experiments looked at "the effects of abiotic conditions, especially water depth and duration of unundation, and interactions with other native and exotic plants." These are two distinct aspects of this abstract to an oral session. If the editor has the article in full (which is listed as "in press" on the author's web page), it should be referenced not a session abstract. However, the conclusion drawn is not that this species compares better than others when inundated, but that other species outcompete it in non-inundated habitats. The alternative conclusion under Ecology is not referenced. The range is problematic, also, as noted on the talk page, were they ever found in Del Norte and Humboldt counties? If not, North Coast should not be used. The article is not accurate overall, and should have a tag that it is a work in progress.
-
- San Francisco Bay Area designation has been fixed and uses the conventional phrase throughout. Anlace 20:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sentence on competition in inundation/non-inundation has been rephrased to reflect the source conclusion more fairly. Anlace 20:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
- Range summary in intro has been edited and a new source added. Expanded version of range discussion placed in conservation section. Regarding "North Coast", the article simply reflects Jepson's statement fundamental authority. Anlace 20:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- 3. Broad in coverage?: The section on conservation is too short for an article that is rated High-Importance to the WikiProject California.
-
- Conservation section is now somewhat expanded and I am looking for other material to add here. Anlace 20:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- 4. Neutral point of view?: It appears neutral.
- 5. Article stability? The article has pretty much been written in the past 3 weeks. I don't see any edit wars or instability, but it needs enough additional work for its rating and work to clear up confusing, contradictory and inaccuracy issues that it won't be very stable right now.
- 6. Images?: The captions are not well done, they simply give photo credit and the name of the palnt. They should state where they are taken, like a county.
-
- Captions are now expanded. Anlace 03:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
-
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --KP Botany 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- thanks for the helpful comments KP. i have fixed a few of the items and started research on others. this may take a few weeks to run down all the data. Anlace 04:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Review notes for importance assessment
In addition to the species conservation status as endangered:
-
-
- Does the plant have an extremely narrow range? Yes, very narrow
- Does the plant have known controversy with land development? eg in the press or actually being assessed to achieve an outcome of development proposals. Yes has caused development delay for assessment of development proposals in San Mateo County.
- Does the plant have a pronounced rate of population decline in the 20th century making it a candidate for extinction within the next ten to 20 yrs? Yes, possibly
- Is the plant commonly discussed by entities such as CNPS? Yes
- Is the plant the subject of recent intense restoration efforts or genetic studies? None known to this editor.
-
Overall criterion seems met for assessment as "high" Anlace 06:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
What is the source for these criteria, though? All California Native plants are discussed by the CNPS, by the way. Population decline is only "possibly," no restoration efforts, so it meets 2 of the 5, a maybe on 1, a no on a 4th, and all California nativ plants meet the 5th. KP Botany 23:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
