Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Perovskia atriplicifolia/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2015 [1].

Perovskia atriplicifolia

Nominator(s): RO(talk) 20:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Perovskia atriplicifolia, (pronounced: per-OFF-skee-uh at-rih-pliss-ih-FOE-lee-uh; commonly called Russian sage). RO(talk) 20:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John

Could we possibly have the pronunciation in IPA? --John (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I knew how to do that, but I don't. Can you recommend someone who does? RO(talk) 20:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
/pəˈrɒvskiə ætrɪplɪsɪˈfoʊliə/ works. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Nikkimaria

Added: ([2]). I also removed the PD art tag, since it seemed incomplete. RO(talk) 16:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind though that since this is hosted on Commons you still need a tag to indicate its copyright status in its country of origin, as well as in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, is that a PD-UK tag? RO(talk) 16:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or the life+70 tag that is included by default as part of PD-Art - it also exists independently. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did I do it correctly: ([3])? RO(talk) 16:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Including the date is a great idea, but a) the template can only understand one date - use 1927, and b) it will only update automatically where 1=PD-old-auto. (I'm also not sure whether it understands "England" as a country input - maybe try "UK"?). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this right: ([4])? RO(talk) 17:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the IR, and thanks for taking the time to teach me about tags! RO(talk) 19:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim

First pass Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...atriplicifolia, refers to the plant's resemblance to Atriplex, also known as saltbush.— doesn't it mean that the leaves resemble those of saltbush?.
  • Conversions are the wrong way around. Metric first since this is a scientific subject and the plant is not native to the US, rest of the world is metric.
Fixed
  • needs more links e.g. dysentery, vodka, panicle, steppe, Tibet, mulching, taproot
Added all but Tibet, as I thought we don't link countries.
Tibet's not a country Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet anyway ...lol. Linked. RO(talk) 18:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • sagebrush friendly—needs hyphen I think.
Added
  • This allows it to grow in the western, southwestern, and northwestern United States—what about Canada?
Probably not, since the US Northwest is a lower latitude than most of Canada, but I didn't see any indication in the sources that it grows in Canada.
I'd prefer a more proactive search, Washington State borders British Columbia, and that's pretty mild Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see your point. I'll try to find a RS that states this, as I'm sure you're right that it grows in BC and other parts of Canada. But I didn't see anything in the 50+ sources I consulted. RO(talk) 18:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think is hardy in certain regions of Canada. it comes from a cold county, no? And here it say hardy in zones 5-9. Hafspajen (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • White Flower Farm catalog describes P. atriplicifolia as "one of the great garden plants of all time".—a plant catalogue is hyping one one its products, so what? Unless I've missed something I can't see why we are repeating spam?
Well, it was repeated in a reliable secondary source, but I removed it nonetheless.
  • woody-based—not quite sure what this means.
Removed
  • hardiness zones five through nine. If you are using USDA, say so and give us some help eg not cold tolerant or whatever.
Added USDA, but it's not that it's not cold tolerant, as 5 is pretty cold.
The point I was making its that your reader has to follow the link to get an idea of waht you mean, so reasonably cold-tolerant, very cold tolerant or whatever best describes it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added "reasonably cold-tolerant".
  • Second and third paragraphs of propagation are a bit WP:HOWTO, needs more encyclopaedic phrasing
I'll work on it, but propagation explains how to propagate, so it's a little how-to by nature, not? RO(talk) 16:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, but the "should be" needs to be rephrased to reflect what is done, rather than as an opinion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you meant now, and I think I've made it less how-to and more encyclopedic, but I'll see if there is more to be done. RO(talk) 18:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notcutt's—???
There's no Wiki article for it, but it's quite notable: ([5]).
That's as may be, but your article gives no clue as to what it is, notable or not. Not all your readers are Americans. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. That's a fair point. I clarified that it's a nursery. RO(talk) 18:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • lots of bees and butterflies—both too informal and too vague. Numbers or variety?
I didn't come across anything that indicated a number or variety.
  • You shouldn't repeat article title in image captions
Okay, but what caption should I use then? RO(talk) 16:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that, with the possible exception of the old image, just removing the name and fixing grammar if required would do
Like this: ([6])? RO(talk) 18:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak, thanks for taking a look. I've gone through this first batch now. Do you think these issues have been fixed? RO(talk) 16:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See comments above. Also why have you left α and β outside the redlinks when the are in the blue links? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed: ([7]). RO(talk) 18:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jimfbleak, I think I fixed all these issues now, except that I still don't have a source for it growing in parts of Canada, but I'll keep looking. Thanks for all these great suggestions! RO(talk) 18:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'll leave the Canada issue with you, if you can't find an RS, so be it. I've looked at Burklemore1's comments which follow, and although I agree with the comments there isn't anything unfixable there, so I'm happy to support. Incidentally, I share his doubts about the gallery (I never put galleries in my FAs), but I can't quote chapter and verse on policy. Good luck Jimfbleak
Best I've found so far is a 2012 conference proceeding: Vinson, Katherine; Zheng, Youbin (2012), "Selection of Plant Species and Species Combinations for Northern Climates", CitiesAlive!: 10th Annual Green Roof and Wall Conference (PDF) I'm not thrilled with a conference paper as a FAC-level source, but showing merely that this species grows (well, even) in Ontario isn't a particularly contentious claim, either. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you that it grows in a park near my house, but since it hasn't become naturalized in Canada, my sources are helpless. A gardening book would be needed, or I would suggest a source that gives hardiness zones rather than political geography. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Burklemore1

Give me a bit to go over the article. However, I have a few comments.

  • I'm not sure what the stance is for galleries in GA and FA articles, but aren't they discouraged? I'm not entirely sure on this, so someone will need to clarify this for me.
The gallery was recently added by Hafspajen; see here Talk:Perovskia atriplicifolia#Gallery. I really don't know either way, but it is tough to get pulled in different directions. I guess I'd like to see a guideline-based argument against it before removal. RO(talk) 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, I am not against galleries myself, but I always thought they were discouraged because of some weird manual of style policy. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For an article that is 28kb, the lead is very long and four paragraphs is way too much. I think you should trim it down a bit.
I'm not sure I agree, but I'll think about what details could be removed. RO(talk) 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer here. Even the article Myrmecia (ant), which is 129kb in size, it has been suggested the lead should be trimmed. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Native habitat and taxonomy section is a bit disoragnised. First, I don't think the IPA is needed for the section, and why does it discuss its common name (in relation to the taxonomy), then the habitat, and returns to taxonomy? I think you should discuss its taxonomy first and move anything about its habitat afterwards. Or, give the habitat its own section.
I split the section up. RO(talk) 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Perovskia atriplicifolia‍‍ '​‍s taxonomy is as follows: Kingdom is Plantae – plants; Subkingdom is Tracheobionta – vascular plants; Superdivision is Spermatophyta – seed plants; Division is Angiosperms – flowering plants;[1] clade is Eudicots;[7] Class is Magnoliopsida – dicotyledons; Subclass is asteridae; Order is lamiales.[1] P. atriplicifolia is part of the Lamiaceae family." This is a bit messy, and I don't think half of this information is necessary. However, feel free to add "P. atriplicifolia is a member of the family Lamiceae of the order Lamiales". A long with that, is there anything about its taxonomic history? Was it placed in other genera and subsequently moved to its current placement? Any synonyms?
I'm not too comfortable removing the info that would otherwise be left uncited in the infobox, unless I can also remove it from there, but I'm not sure I understand why you prefer an incomplete taxonomy. Can you please explain? RO(talk) 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm actually curious if there is anymore information. I checked all the sources and they can all be kept because they will still have the info that you have stated in the section anyway (I would just change the link for NCBI). And plus, is it necessary to list its ENTIRE classification? I think it would be fine to just state that it is also placed in the family ..... in the order ..... I don't think any comprehensiveness would be lost if you were to remove some of it. Besides, I think there is more information that could be very helpful to add. You could first mention who and when it was described (I have been seeing around that it was described in 1848), and as I mentioned above, was it originally placed in another plant genus or has it always been placed here? If I am correct that it was described more than 160 years ago, there is a possible taxonomic history about it. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent if you're referring to Perovskia atriplicifolia or P. atriplicifolia in the article. For example, you say "In its native habitat, P. atriplicifolia‍‍​‍s flowers are eaten, and the leaves are smoked for their euphoric properties", but then you say "Perovskia atriplicifolia averages .61 to 1.22 meters (2 ft 0 in to 4 ft 0 in) tall, but sometimes grows to 1.5 meters (4 ft 11 in) Its silvery-green leaves are finely-dissected and intensely aromatic when crushed." There are many more instances which you will need to address.
What I was doing is using the full name at the first mention in each paragraph, then using the short form thereafter until a new paragraph or section. Should they all be full names? RO(talk) 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're mostly correct here. Proper usage is full name the first time in each section, or whenever it appears at the start of a sentence, and short forms otherwise. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I see. Disregard this issue then. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sources in your bibliography does not italicise the binomial name.
Fixed
  • Remove the accessdate for ""Indigenous Knowledge of Folk Medicine by the Women of Kalat and Kuzhdar

Regions of Balochistan, Pakistan". Journals do not need access dates. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Thanks for these comments, Burklemore1. RO(talk) 15:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more of a suggestion to find anymore information that you may not have, but Biodiversity library comes up with 56 results for this plant.
  • "They become especially silvery during autumn." Why does it become silvery during autumn? This is something I'm not clear on.
  • With the concerns of comprehensiveness, I'm going to remain neutral rather than supporting or opposing. It's a very nice article and you have put a lot of effort into it, but I think a bit more is needed. Once my issues are addressed and some expansion has been done, I'll be happy to support. Burklemore1 (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

Started this as a review of reference formatting, then skimmed prose to evaluate 1b/1c comprehensiveness. Ironically, I may have missed some reference formatting quibbles, as this is a citation-formatted article, and I'm a cite family cultist!

  • You have quite a few web sources where you format what I would consider the |work as if it were the author. You don't do this everywhere (the RHS sources are not done this way, for example). But cosnider reformatting: Better Homes and Gardens, Missouri Botanical Gardens, National Center for Biotechnology Information reference (but see below about what you're doing with this one), OSU Department of Horticulture, ... and others, as I've stopped tracking this specifically here.
Fixed
  • For Gledhill, I'd have "4th" edition rather than "4".
Fixed
  • You've got a (partial) publisher location on the Harrison source. As you're not generally providing publisher locations, I assume this is in error.
Removed
  • I am not entirely convinced that Plants for a Future constitutes a reliable source, although you're welcome to convince me otherwise.
I think you're right, so I've removed it as a source. RO(talk) 16:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drifitng into a review of prose, in large part to determine if the sourcing represents a comprehensive review of sources:
  • The approach taken to the taxonomy section isn't particularly compelling prose. It's also not the standard way of dealing with full taxonomy in species article (basically, let the taxobox handle it; you don't need to address the higher taxonomic levels directly, because those aren't speficic to, well, the species, but topics for each level up the tree).
  • On the other hand, the taxonomy section should say something about who initially described the species, along with holotype information if that's available. I'd suggest including the discussion of the common names in that section, too.
  • Especially if the common name material is moved to the taxonomy section, there's very little content here regarding native ecology; this is almost exclusively an article about its use in cultivation. Is there anything more that can be said about its behavior in its native range? Among other things, I'd expect a "Similar species" subsection somewhere (either in a discussion of phylogeny or whatever the native ecology section is ultimately titled). There are nearly a dozen Asian species of Perovskia. Do any of the sources that discuss them indicate the distinguishing characteristics of P. atriplicifolia?
  • There are three sections - Propagation, Cultivation, Landscaping - that are all fundamentally about its use in cultivation. Is this the best structure for this article, as opposed to a single section with appropriate subsections? You'll need to decide at some point whether information about the primary cultivars is best handled in the context of cultivation or in the taxonomy section (personally, I'd prefer the latter, but others may have differences of opinion on that issue).
  • Traditional medicine probably doesn't require WP:MEDRS standards, but I'd like to see weightier attribution for its use as an antipyretic than Plants for a Future; there does seem to be some acknowledgement of this in scholarly articles. Likewise, I think you can do better regarding its use as a euphoriant. See this article, which also discusses its potential use for bioremediation.
I removed all content sourced to that website, which was just this and one other point. RO(talk) 23:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contrary to the assertion that "research and data is limited", there's been considerable examination of its phytochemistry since 1999. A more thorough review of this aspect of the literature is probably warranted.

Unfortunately, I'm inclined to lean oppose at this time. I think there's some work to do in the prose, but my biggest concerns are comprehensiveness. There's just a lot more out there about its native ecology and phytochemistry that isn't reflected in the article as it stands. Its use in cultivation has been thoroughly examined, but the article is about the species in its entirety. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this looks like peer review stuff now, so do you think these are things I can fix during the nom, or do you think I should ask for the nom to be archived? RO(talk) 16:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain. Some of it will depend on whether you have the time and resources available to fill out the missing material within the FAC timeframe (and the tolerance of other FAC reviewers for large-scale changes to the article during the nomination process). In any case, to help get this started, check out this article from the American Journal of Botany, which is an extensive discussion of the phylogenetics of the Mentheae (with this species explicitly included in the resulting cladograms and age-of-divergence estimates). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see only one hit for Perovskia atriplicifolia in that article, and it's not in the context of discussing the species in any detail. This is all it has, "Perovskia atriplicifolia Benth., cultivated, J. Walker 2524 (WIS);". So, what exactly are you suggesting that I add from it? RO(talk) 16:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not discussed in the text, but it is included as one of the species in the article's cladograms. Being able to expand the taxonomy section into a "Taxonomy and phylogeny" section that includes discussion of cladistics would be valuable. Likewise, figure 2 gives estimated divergence dates (the mid-Miocene divergence of the P. atriplicifolia line from Rosmarinus officinalis is the sort of thing that's nice to have in a phylogeny discussion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Figure 2 is here, but I don't see any mention of P. atriplicifolia or Rosmarinus officinalis. Anyway, I only took this on because I assumed it would be significantly less intensive than my previous articles, which all but burnt me out on this place. If that's not the case, then maybe I made a mistake by noming it here too soon, but I saw that Ursa Minor recently passed FAC with about 2,500 words (I know, OSE), but I find it difficult to believe that an article on P. atriplicifolia would call for a similar amount of material as one on the Little Dipper, one of the most well-known constellations in the sky. I do appreciate your comments and suggestions, but I think it's probably better to just withdraw this nom and move on to something less frustrating, whatever that may be ...lol. RO(talk) 17:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I really hope that you don't become frustrated by the FA process. I'm admittedly a "tough judge" here, because I believe very strongly in the idea of the bronze star representing professional-grade presentations of the topics. Sometimes those are easier than others (I can't speak to the constellation articles, as I've never reviewed one). If this one fails FAC, or you decide to withdraw it, I'd be happy to work with you on source selection to get the content that you're missing. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be really great to have some help, as I've done pretty much everything here that I can. I guess I'll leave it open until someone else opposes, but I doubt I can get anymore supports with this oppose hanging over my head, so I don't know what to do to be honest. I'm doing my very best, but I stand by my assertion that something is wrong when this article needs as much or more material than Ursa Minor to be comprehensive. RO(talk) 18:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Since Squeamish Ossifrage has raised concerns about missing details I think it would be best if this nom were archived. I don't want to waste anyone's time on an article that won't pass this time around, and it's not fair to others who have had their FACs closed for similar reasons if this one is kept open while the concerns are addressed. RO(talk) 15:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Perovskia_atriplicifolia/archive1&oldid=1084313864"