Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lamiid families/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of lamiid families

List of lamiid families (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 23:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of Wikipedia's science-y articles are a bit overwhelming to people who lack the necessary background. This is what attracted me to WP:FLC many years ago ... I saw a lot of lists that served very nicely as readable introductions to a subject. My hope is that this list series will eventually succeed in some of the same ways. Btw, I tried several times to write about leaves and flowers, but these tend to vary a lot within any large family. They deserve a list, but not this list. - Dank (push to talk) 23:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceoil

Initial minor gripes:

  • Tense: Garryales has unisexual trees and shrubs, and leaves that have stalks but no stipules - have unisexual trees
  • Plants in Gentianales have pitted wood and...
  • For casual readers The lamiid clade will be perplexing; if there is a better way to say what this means
  • The lead could better explain the tie between the different families.

The page is absorbing and beautifully, exactly written. Ceoil (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really glad you're enjoying these lists; if there's anything I can do to improve them (whether they're at FLC or not), let me know. I'm working on your last two points (it's hard, because I got the opposite advice regarding "clade" in a previous FLC, when I left it out). I get that "Garryales has" and "Plants in Gentianales" are problematic, and I'll try to come up with fixes. But: our Gentianales and Icacinales articles begin "Gentianales is" and "Icacinales is". As I understand it, this isn't usually a problem in your country ... you guys easily flip back and forth between two meanings for a word like Gentianales, but we don't (well, we haven't usually, although we're more okay with your way of doing things than we used to be). Anyway ... above my pay grade, but as long as the plants project generally prefers singular verbs after taxa (we never say "The Geranium are"), I want to avoid the plural after a singular noun. (I've found that problems like this can often be fixed by moving things around ... for instance, I could start the relevant sentence off with "Garryales and Icacinales have ...".) - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you decide is fine, none of these are deal breakers. Will look back in again with view to further comments in a few days. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much for taking a look. I beefed up the lead ... now looking at the other problems. - Dank (push to talk) 01:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great re lead. Why does lamiids redirect to Asterids in the opening sentence. Ceoil (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no article on just the lamiids (until now!); they're lumped in with the asterids. I've changed the link to a section link, if that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 02:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does. As a suggestion, given there are so many constructs of the Stilbe is from the Greek for "shining", bla type, would it be better to abbreviate as Stilbe (from the Greek for "shining"), bla Ceoil (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've contributed a little bit to Eewilson's next list, List of campanulid families, and I'd like to keep my lists in sync with hers, to some reasonable degree. Her etymologies sound different than mine in several respects, so I don't have any answers right now about what my etymologies are going to look like. I'd like to see how reviewers react to her work first. - Dank (push to talk) 04:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Ceoil (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, Ceoil (no rush of course) ... this is actually about an edit you made over at List of lilioid families, but it might be relevant here, too. I'm aware that, more and more over the last couple of decades, people are uncomfortable with too many "ands" ... but IMO pulling them can create no-win situations, sometimes. In "The southern United States, tropical and subtropical Asia, and Australasia", you took out the last "and" ... if you still want that, then I'll take another look at this list (the lamiids I mean) and see if I can make some edits that work for you. But maintaining consistency is going to be hard. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Ceoil, I removed "is", "comes" etc. per your suggestion. I don't think I can go with parentheses the whole way down, so I went with commas instead. See what you think. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im happy with both of your last two comments & relevant edits. Support. Ceoil (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

  • I also agree that the lead could be expanded
  • The Oxford comma, particularly in the table, is used in some places but not elsewhere. Needs to be standardized
    • Removed 3 commas.
  • (the anthers) Maybe insert "referring to"
    • Inserted "on" and "bulky anthers".
  • and trees, that Comma not needed
    • I removed a phrase.
  • Might be cool if you could link the etymological origins (e.g. convolvulus)
    • Same answer as above ... I'd rather wait to see how close I'm going to be able to get to Eewilson's etymologies.

That's all! Nice work. ~ HAL333 21:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other reviews

Not an image review

I can't do an image review for my own nomination, but since I didn't select any of these images, it probably does make sense for me to verify that I've checked everything, so ... that's what this is. Fortunately, licensing tends to be fairly trivial for plant images on Commons. This version of the list was just after I transferred the images selected by Johnboddie (not to be confused with User:Johnbod!) Those images are still in his sandbox now. The Graphics Lab cropped a few of these images, and I cropped a few more using the CropTool on Commons. Commons didn't have some of the images we needed, and Eewilson stepped in and transferred a few images from iNaturalist: the ones for Carlemanniaceae, Tetrachondra and Thomandersia. Apart from these:

  • 47 are "own work" with no indication at all that they aren't. 7 licenses (counting images that these images were extracted from) were verified by the Flickr bot, 4 by the iNaturalist bot, and one by the Panoramio bot.
  • File:Utricularia vulgaris inflorescens (05).jpg was confimed by a volunteer reviewer.
  • Gesneria pauciflora, the first Lindernia dubia and the second Olea europaea are US government employee photos.
  • For File:Byblis liniflora 3 flowering.jpg, the WMF received a confirmation email.
  • Kew Gardens verified the Oncotheca humboldtiana dried specimen.
  • The one illustration is very old; no copyright problem.
  • Image composition is generally excellent. Alt text is always present, and spare but acceptable.
  • Happy to do more research if needed. - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a source review

Note that Aza24 did a thorough source review over at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of lilioid families/archive1. These sources are largely the same, and I've implemented those suggestions here. - Dank (push to talk) 00:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass

I've looked through the sources here and found no issues in formatting, reliability or verifiability. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 23:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eewilson support

Probably just general comments here. Leaving these five then will continue later.

Continuing...

  • Family Hydroleaceae: Hydrolea spinosa is an invasive species. An invasive species where?
    • Here's the entire Economic Importance section from the source: "Hydrolea spinosa is invasive. A few species are of minor horticultural importance." How would you phrase it?
      • Done. Just leave it as you have it, then. But it's often the case that species are not considered invasive in their native environments. Just wondering if the source said it was invasive in certain areas. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Family Icacinaceae: Vines, shrubs and trees, all with stem tendrils for climbing. Even the shrubs and trees? Also, this may not be a big deal, but I don't see the tendrils on the close-up image for this family.
    • I have deleted the mention of tendrils. FGVP 14, p. 239, refers to shrubs with "scandent branches" but doesn't say anything similar about the trees. PotW refers to tendrils but is ambiguous.
  • Family Lentibularia­ceae: Lentibularia, an earlier synonym for the genus, is probably from Greek for "lentil-shaped bladders". The "probably" is concerning. Do the sources say "probably" (or a synonym of)?
    • I don't follow why "probably" would be concerning. PotW says: "probably refers to the lentil-shaped bladders".
      • Done. When I see "probably" or "possibly" or other non-committal words during a review, I just want to make sure the source has said that rather than we, as Wikipedia, say that. If the source says it, then it's cool. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Family Lentibulariaceae: Pinguicula is used to curdle milk in northern Europe, and also occasionally to kill pests in greenhouses. I don't think you need the "also" here
  • Families Linderniaceae and Mazaceae: The former has this sentence: Stems often have four flat sides. and the latter has this phrase: ...with quadrangular stems.. Do they both mean the same thing? If so, should they be worded the same?
  • Family Oleaceae: Olea, from a Latin plant name Should you say what plant or be more specific? I am left wanting.
  • Family Plantagina­ceae: Plantago, from a Latin plant name Same question as Olea.
    • For both: that wouldn't be my call. Unless someone has reproduced ancient DNA, we have no way of knowing that 2000-year-old plants are identical to plants we have today; they might have been used for similar purposes or called the same thing, but that's not the same as being the same thing. And even if I could get interested in doing exhaustive research to answer these questions for one genus, I'm not going to do it for all 14,000 seed-plant genera, and FLC is generally looking for some kind of consistency in how these questions are tackled. So no, I'd rather not get started down that path.
      • Done. Well, really all I was asking is if the source had more information, not that you should find it. If that's what is in the sources, then it's perfectly fine as is. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • If a source says that that something was the Roman word for some vegetable, but the source gives no clue how they determined what the plant actually was, then I say nothing. It may be that botanists know how to interpret statements like these (so they say), but most of my target readership wouldn't understand the ambiguities involved. (It doesn't bother me if other editors confidently assert that what the Romans called X is what we now call Y, but I'm not willing to go that far without some sort of evidence.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Family Plantagina­ceae: Foxglove is also a source of digitalin, a heart stimulant. I think that should be "digitalis".
    • The source says digitalin. It's complicated. It wouldn't bother me to reword as "digitalis", but then "a source of" wouldn't be precisely right.
  • Family Schlegelia­ceae: Evergreens, including vines, shrubs and trees with pale bark. Don't need the ending period; it is not a full sentence.
  • Family Vahliaceae: The article Paleotropical Kingdom, which you link to for the word "Paleotropics", never uses the words "Paleotropic" or "Paleotropics". I'm wondering if you just should use Paleotropical Kingdom instead.
  • Family Verbenaceae: Verbena, from Latin for plants used in some religious ceremonies Similar question as with Olea and Plantago; is there a way to be more specific without taking up too much space? What plants? What ceremonies? I don't know. Just thoughts.
  • Family Boraginaceae: Is "possibly" used in the source(s)?

That's all I see for this general review. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 22:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
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_lamiid_families/archive1&oldid=1136153165"