Ficus aurea is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 3, 2010. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
OK, I am comparing this with some other plant FAs to see what needs to be done, easiest for me (hehe) are Banksia ericifolia and Banksia spinulosa which are the last two Banksias to roll off the production line of Wikiprject Banksia, as well as Ailanthus altissima...
Actually Ficus maxima has been recognised as a valid name for a different species. Miller described a species based on Sloane's illustration, which had unpaired figs. Fawc. & Rendle connected the illustration with Grisebach's F. suffocans, making F. suffocans the junior synonym. DeWolf followed Fawc. & Rendle, and everyone since has followed DeWolf. So F. maxima is in use for a different species.
Berg decided that applying the rules of priority would be very confusing, because that would make this species F. maxima, a name that is widely used for a totally different species. So rather than confuse the whole world, he proposed that the name F. maxima be conserved for that species. And his proposal was accepted. Guettarda ( talk) 08:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Nice article. I'm not going to review it because of the obvious COI, but I've run the DOI bot and made some minor edits. Comments
Good luck jimfbleak ( talk) 05:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 30, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Million_Moments ( talk) 17:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
otherwise looks pretty good. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
"...the species that was then known as F. suffocans Griseb. (a member of the subgenus Pharmacosycea)." To someone unfamiliar with botanical writing, that sentence is hard to parse, especially the "Griseb." part. Kaldari ( talk) 18:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Somebody should fix ref number 43 (ref name=IFAS) 201.81.198.104 ( talk) 15:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Ficus aurea is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 3, 2010. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
OK, I am comparing this with some other plant FAs to see what needs to be done, easiest for me (hehe) are Banksia ericifolia and Banksia spinulosa which are the last two Banksias to roll off the production line of Wikiprject Banksia, as well as Ailanthus altissima...
Actually Ficus maxima has been recognised as a valid name for a different species. Miller described a species based on Sloane's illustration, which had unpaired figs. Fawc. & Rendle connected the illustration with Grisebach's F. suffocans, making F. suffocans the junior synonym. DeWolf followed Fawc. & Rendle, and everyone since has followed DeWolf. So F. maxima is in use for a different species.
Berg decided that applying the rules of priority would be very confusing, because that would make this species F. maxima, a name that is widely used for a totally different species. So rather than confuse the whole world, he proposed that the name F. maxima be conserved for that species. And his proposal was accepted. Guettarda ( talk) 08:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Nice article. I'm not going to review it because of the obvious COI, but I've run the DOI bot and made some minor edits. Comments
Good luck jimfbleak ( talk) 05:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 30, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Million_Moments ( talk) 17:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
otherwise looks pretty good. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
"...the species that was then known as F. suffocans Griseb. (a member of the subgenus Pharmacosycea)." To someone unfamiliar with botanical writing, that sentence is hard to parse, especially the "Griseb." part. Kaldari ( talk) 18:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Somebody should fix ref number 43 (ref name=IFAS) 201.81.198.104 ( talk) 15:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)