Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Narcissus horticultural divisions/archive1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 09:29, 17 March 2015 [1].

List of Narcissus horticultural divisions

List of Narcissus horticultural divisions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Michael Goodyear (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • I know nothing about this subject but as it has no reviews I will give it a go.
Thank you --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead appears to assume that Narcissus is the formal name for daffodils but this is not explained. It should be clarified.
Paragraph dealing with formal and informal names added.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The list of Narcissus horticultural divisions provided by the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) is widely used and cited." Widely used and cited is vague. I suggest something like "The British Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) is the international registration authority for the Narcissus genus, commonly known as daffodils."
Reworded to explain this--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Division 13, which includes all wild daffodils, is the exception to this scheme." Exception in what way?
Reworded to explain this --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • color. As this article is about a classification by a British society, I think it should use British spelling - colour.
Agreed, probably started its life under a US editor. Changed throughout as per WP:MOS --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no references for the definitions in the table.
Unsure what you are looking for here - this whole page is about the RHS list with their definitions --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For added clarity, added the same reference to all column header titles --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes are below references, but they are usually above.
OK. That does seem to be the order in WP:MOS, though I must admit in all the hundreds of pages I have written I have never noticed that preference before!--Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are inconsistencies in the references. 1 is missing isbn. 2 does not have date in brackets - and is no author available? 4, 5 and 7 no date (5 is dated 2015 - have you checked for changes as you accessed it 2014?). 6 non-standard date. 11 and 12 commercial catalogues are not suitable references. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1. I don't recall ever seeing an isbn atrached to the original RHS list, but managed to find one in a library catalogue--Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Correct. Cite only brackets dates if author or editor known. Retrieved and inserted --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4,5,7. Putting meaningful dates on websites is always tricky. Added the copywrite dates. Some like 5. are on automatic update, so updated retrieval date--Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Looks bot generated. Corrected --Michael Goodyear (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11, 12. While in general we try to avoid using commercial sources as references to avoid the appearance of promotion, sometimes this is important for other reasons. In this case larger well established nurseries have considerable experience in growing daffodils often over many generations, and provide much useful information. In the case of the reference to 'Division 14', the whole point is that here is a major supplier providing bulbs under that name, and the reference is appropriate. In both cases I have added additional non-commercial references and reworded the section to make the purpose of those references clearer. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't see this before since not being part of a formal review process your comments did not trigger a notification. I will look through them and respond --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have now revised the page as per the above comments. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks fine to me, although I would take out "This page describes a list of Narcissus horticultural divisions." This is close to starting the article "This is a list...", which is forbidden. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done - the problem was working the page title into the opening sentence. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Seattle

The joys of linkrot. All links were checked at nomination, but one website has completely revamped itself invalidating all existing links. I think the easiest solution here is simply to remove them, although archived urls remain a possibility. All remaining links rechecked. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list of Narcissus horticultural divisions We don't start articles "This article of ...", and the bold link violated MOS:BOLD, and the bolding itself is an awkward phrase. Articles shouldn't incorporate awkward phrases just to get a phrase for bolding.
I checked all FLs in Wikiproject Plants, and they all get around this by omitting the word 'list', so I have now followed that example. I was not sure which bold violation specifically you were referring to, but I took out the link. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBNs should be consistent, with the hyphen; see WP:ISBN for a converter
What exactly do you mean by a converter? I have gone to the source documents listed here, and in all but one there are no hyphens in the ISBN quoted on them--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC) I eventually retrieved hyphenated ISBNs for all citations from Amazon. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 2 needs an ndash for the alphabetical range; ref 6 has a superfluous parenthesis; ref 4 a .pdf could be added to the URL so it formats as a PDF, like ref 10: refs 4 and 10 likewise need a "|format=PDF" parameter added
2. Substituted
4. .pdf added
6. I cannot see any superfluous parentheses, please specify - all parentheses were added by cite templates, anyway.
4&10. 4 already had format=pdf, added to 10.
  • What makes "The Plant Expert" and "Brent and Becky's Bulbs" reliable sources?
RS. Well that is always an interesting question. The second one of these sources is now moot, since that specific link is currently dead, but for the record they are a major grower that have been cultivating Narcissus plants for over 100 years and are often cited in the horticultural literature, so yes they know what they are talking about. Reliability is derterminable from a number of perspectives. One is how they viewed by peers and other experts and another is triangulation with other sources. If all independent sources agree on something, it is likely that the information is reliable. In this case I provided three congruent sources to make that point. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is widely used since the RHS is the international authority for the registration of such cultivars. is this original research?
OR. No, that statement comes directly from the RHS' own literature. To make that point clearer I have placed a reference directly on that statement together with a corroborating reference from another organisation. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • perianth segments/tepals ("petals"); (470 in 2009/2010) MOS:SLASH recommends against use of the slash
Slash. Punctuation replaced --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (See List of Award of Garden Merit narcissus) this probably should be in the "See also" section
List. Moved --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "List of divisions" seems superfluous to the "Definitions of Divisions" section below
Actually I think they are complementary depending on the level of detail the reader wants to get into. The first use is a conveniently accessed list of names, while the second goes into each name in much more detail. That is why they were give separate section headings. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a stretch for the reader to scroll a bit further down the page for a better list of the information. The first "List of divisions" wouldn't seem to help readers much without the actual RHS definitions, which are provided directly below. Seattle (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then removed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Colour Code" section is entirely unreferenced
I think that happened when paragraphs got moved around - replaced --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure why header colors are needed in the "Definitions of Divisions" section. I don't think year of registration should be included either, as you only have three identified years. The heavier borders seem unnecessary as well, as well as the large table headers (this applies to the "Colour Code" section as well)
Colours. If you mean the alternating blue and white, it is because it breaks the table up and therefore easier to read by emphasising the columns.Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Years. True - I didn't have all the dates but do know and have included them for each category Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Borders. Borders were included for the same reason as colours - to make the table easier to read. Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Column titles. Surely titles should always be in larger type? Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that, if formatted correctly, the columns shouldn't be too difficult to disambiguate from one another without added colors; I think the same for borders as well. There might be one or two exceptions, but I don't think featured lists follow that format. Seattle (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then, all colours and borders removed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't recommend spanning number 11 in the "Definitions of Divisions" section; the table really should be sortable, save for the "Definition" and "Example" section. I think the "RHS Colour Classification" section should be sortable as well, and the span on "W" likewise removed.
Spanning. I am not sure what you mean here - the rowspan x 3 for Division 11? The point being that this is a subdivision, quite recent too --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sort. I added 'sortable' to both tables, but I am not entiely convinced it would be an improvement. As far as I know placing sorts only on selected columns is tricky. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spanning W. When you refer to removing spans - do you mean make every item a separate row? How does that improve it? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I collapsed the Ws for simplicity --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scope. Scope tags added to all column titles--Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Photo caption "Narcissus 'Geranium' 8W-O" needs a reference to define it as such
Reference added --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have references that the "Example" in the "Definitions of Divisions" section is an example of the definition?
Each one has been checked on the RHS searchable registry --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A reference has been added to the column heading to make this clear --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be better to just quote the definitions verbatim from the RHS rather than paraphrase... there's close paraphrasing in the list now.
I don't think that would be a very good idea. One attempt has already been made to delete this page for copywrite violation because the definitions were too close to those on the RHS website, necessitating rewriting them all. That was after responding to a similar request to this. If we used the RHS definitions I am sure we would get a speedy deletion. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list does not meet featured criteria. Oppose for featured status. Seattle (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe have responded to all your comments and accommodated as many as I could--Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments responded to --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's still one border on row number 12, and the "Definition" and "Cultivator Example" columns should be unsortable. Otherwise, I'm happy to strike my oppose from this nomination. Seattle (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, missed that, now taken care of. Thanks. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose struck. Thanks again. Seattle (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tim riley

Support – Only a few quibbles:

  • Is it really "The American Dadffodil Society" – mentioned twice? If crossed my mind that this might have been a quaint spelling brought over on the Mayflower, but Googling suggests that it isn't.
Quite right! fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead and the Cultivar Example column, the Manual of Style would have us use double rather than single quotation marks for the names.
No. The convention for cultivars laid down by the RHS is: in single quotation marks, with capital initial letters.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh! That's me told! Who am I to referee between the Wikipedia MoS and the RHS? Tim riley talk 23:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a discrepency, the MOS says: Cultivar and cultivar group names of plants are not italicized, and are capitalized (including the word "Group" in the name); cultivar names appear within single quotes (Malus domestica 'Red Delicious', while cultivar groups do not Cynara cardunculus Scolymus Group).--Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs: you mix ten- and thirteen-digit ISBNs (the latter are preferred) and hyphenate them strangely in places. For future reference, there is an excellent site here that rescues you painlessly. For present purposes these are the ISBNs you want:
    • ref 3: Kington 1998 978-1-874431-69-5
    • ref 4: Brickell 2008 978-0-415-27344-2
    • ref 9: Kington 2014 978-1-907057-50-2

Bibliography

    • Hanks: 978-0-415-27344-2
    • Kamenetsky: 978-1-4398-4924-8
Interesting - but those were the formats used in the actual publications cite. Very well I have replaced them and bookmarked the converter. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. I much enjoyed this page, which is decidedly a compliment from a persistent refusenik at gardening. Tim riley talk 08:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou - all changes effected --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Crisco

Material reorganised accordingly Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't saying to make it in its own section. Just to rework things so that you didn't repeat the same information. Compare "It is widely used since the RHS is the international authority for the registration of such cultivars" and "RHS, the international registration authority for the genus", for instance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm quoting from the old version. I didn't recommend moving everything out of the lead and into the body. What you had was good, just needed tweaking. Having everything in the body... it makes it look like the list wants to be an article, but can't get there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Looks much better now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 10 March 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_list_candidates/List_of_Narcissus_horticultural_divisions/archive1&oldid=1138483361"