From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Erythranthe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs) 12:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I propose to take on this review and will study the article in detail shortly. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Some preliminary thoughts

  • If you want to discuss the etymology of the name, it is probably best to have a section devoted to it, or you could have an "Etymology and taxonomy" section.
I was thinking you would be moving in all or part of the first paragraph of your Description section. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
 Done I agree. This is better. HalfGig talk 21:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The Description section should be a description of the general characteristics of the group, see Cucurbita, an article you know well, for what I mean. Zombia is another example.
  • Do you need to have two species lists? Do they contain the same species, or are some species in one and not the other?
    • Since there are so many and there are significant section differences, I thought making two helped seeing the larger picture and if you want to know what's in a section, it's easy to do so, and likewise for having a straight listing. HalfGig talk 01:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Personally, I would put the species lists at the end of the article because otherwise people may not even find the text below.
I think that is a considerable improvement, leaving the main part of the article more rounded and compact. I will now study the article in detail and continue with the rest of the review. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply

First reading

That's all for now. It is quite a challenging article because of the complexity of the taxonomy of the genus. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Second reading

Sminthopsis84 has made a few alterations to the article. I have done some light copyediting, and here are a few more things I noticed:

  • "Molecular data show Erythranthe and Diplacus to be distinct evolutionary lines, not each other's closest relative, and apart from strictly defined Mimulus." - How about leaving out the middle phrase and rewording this as "Molecular data show Erythranthe and Diplacus to be distinct evolutionary lines that are distinct from Mimulus as strictly defined."
  • "The plant is hairy to slightly hairy and grows from 0.5–3 cm (0.20–1.18 in) tall." - This is about Erythranthe alsinoides and the dimensions are wrong (more likely 5 to 30 cm tall).
  • "The flowers are yellow with reddish-brown spots, usually on the lower lip, and have fuse into upper and lower lips" - This sentence needs attention.
  • "Diplacus is clearly derived from within Mimulus s.l. and was not usually considered to be a separate genus." - I don't understand this. What do you mean by "Mimulus s.l."?
    • abbr for "sensu lato", meaning in the broad sense. This is used in botany a lot, as is "sensu stricto", meaning in the strict sense. I've changed to lay terms. HalfGig talk 13:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • "in central California between 200,000 and 500,000 years ago" - It is customary to put the oldest date first.
I think that's all. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Cwmhiraeth: Ready for next round. HalfGig talk 13:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

GA criteria

  • The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
  • The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
  • The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
  • The article is neutral.
  • The article is stable.
  • The images are relevant and have suitable captions, and are either in the public domain or properly licensed.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Erythranthe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth ( talk · contribs) 12:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC) reply

I propose to take on this review and will study the article in detail shortly. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 12:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Some preliminary thoughts

  • If you want to discuss the etymology of the name, it is probably best to have a section devoted to it, or you could have an "Etymology and taxonomy" section.
I was thinking you would be moving in all or part of the first paragraph of your Description section. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
 Done I agree. This is better. HalfGig talk 21:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The Description section should be a description of the general characteristics of the group, see Cucurbita, an article you know well, for what I mean. Zombia is another example.
  • Do you need to have two species lists? Do they contain the same species, or are some species in one and not the other?
    • Since there are so many and there are significant section differences, I thought making two helped seeing the larger picture and if you want to know what's in a section, it's easy to do so, and likewise for having a straight listing. HalfGig talk 01:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Personally, I would put the species lists at the end of the article because otherwise people may not even find the text below.
I think that is a considerable improvement, leaving the main part of the article more rounded and compact. I will now study the article in detail and continue with the rest of the review. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:41, 21 April 2017 (UTC) reply

First reading

That's all for now. It is quite a challenging article because of the complexity of the taxonomy of the genus. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 11:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Second reading

Sminthopsis84 has made a few alterations to the article. I have done some light copyediting, and here are a few more things I noticed:

  • "Molecular data show Erythranthe and Diplacus to be distinct evolutionary lines, not each other's closest relative, and apart from strictly defined Mimulus." - How about leaving out the middle phrase and rewording this as "Molecular data show Erythranthe and Diplacus to be distinct evolutionary lines that are distinct from Mimulus as strictly defined."
  • "The plant is hairy to slightly hairy and grows from 0.5–3 cm (0.20–1.18 in) tall." - This is about Erythranthe alsinoides and the dimensions are wrong (more likely 5 to 30 cm tall).
  • "The flowers are yellow with reddish-brown spots, usually on the lower lip, and have fuse into upper and lower lips" - This sentence needs attention.
  • "Diplacus is clearly derived from within Mimulus s.l. and was not usually considered to be a separate genus." - I don't understand this. What do you mean by "Mimulus s.l."?
    • abbr for "sensu lato", meaning in the broad sense. This is used in botany a lot, as is "sensu stricto", meaning in the strict sense. I've changed to lay terms. HalfGig talk 13:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • "in central California between 200,000 and 500,000 years ago" - It is customary to put the oldest date first.
I think that's all. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 13:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Cwmhiraeth: Ready for next round. HalfGig talk 13:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC) reply

GA criteria

  • The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
  • The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
  • The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
  • The article is neutral.
  • The article is stable.
  • The images are relevant and have suitable captions, and are either in the public domain or properly licensed.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook