GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 20:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will take a stab at this one! (After you reviewed two of mine, probably time for me to review one of yours...) Be aware that I am very much not a botanist, so I will ask some naive questions. —Kusma (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I sort of rushed this one. Dracophyllum 02:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Progress box and general comments

[edit]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
added pd nz

More soon! —Kusma (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to The Palmerston Cooperage and Box Factory was one of many factories used to produce boxes from kahikatea wood. The caption on manawatu heritage specifically says it used kahikatea wood.

An interesting and mostly well sourced article, but perhaps not fully polished yet. Will put on hold, but I don't think there is anything insurmountable in the comments below. —Kusma (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content and prose review

[edit]
Not very, but unfortunately I can't find any sources on it other than that it exists.
OK, I was just wondering whether we need more hatnotes/disambiguation for the "white pine" name elsewhere.
done
Changed to it and its
– used
split
done
rmved
This conclusion isn't really explained very well in the paper, I've removed this sentence.
done
The modification part is the fact that it has this receptacle structure.
your phrasing is better, added. I have avoided using too many words which you have to look up just to read the text.
fixed
reworded to The receptacles and seeds have been found to contain anthocyanins, rare in gymnosperms, which one 1988 paper suggested make the fruit as a whole more attractive to prospective animal dispersers.

I could also just leave out the evolutionary cause of the anthocyanins here.

(Striking: Arresting the attention and producing a vivid impression on the sight or the mind.)

Will have a look Dracophyllum 05:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None except kahikatea are used today. I can't get citations for either red pine or white pine being uncommon, though I've never heard them used except in old books.
My reading of the cladogram is actually incorrect anyway. I could use the more in depth one here https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1096-0031.2011.00381.x if you would like.
done
linked to montane habitats.
What you got out of it was what I was trying to say, does it need clarifying? I could include more detail of the composition but it differs a lot depending on where the forest occurs. Dracophyllum 06:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done
Bolivian cloud forest is/has a reputation for being far more diverse than nz forests. Nothing in particular makes it a good example, just I can't say in general it's comparable really per WP:OR.
Linked, paper doesn't mention light but that would be my inference.
The difficulty of re-establishment has a lot to do with competition, no?
I'm not sure what to call the section otherwise
ok
Well it could be either the tree or the forest, but I've changed it to they are.
I have fixed the forest/forests things, but the ambiguity of it/they that I switch between is because kahikatea is both one species of tree and kahikatea trees in general is plural. There is no plural form. Dracophyllum 06:15, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the caption on manawatu heritage specifically said it did.
done
I've changed it to a more illustrative proverb but yes.
I'm sure some of these practises are still ongoing, the question is whether I can find sources confirming that. I could remove traditional from the lede because the distinction doesn't matter too much.
The gymnosperm database is a bit iffy for RS I think. rmved the rest (they were on the article before I started working on it).

First reading done! —Kusma (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A notable urban remnant is Riccarton Bush. It’s there because its original owner, John Deans, asked his wife to protect the forest while he was on his death bed. Formal protection came decades later. It’s worth mentioning this in the conservation section as kahikatea are otherwise gone from the Canterbury Plains. Schwede66 19:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added @Schwede66. Dracophyllum 01:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source checks and formatting

[edit]

Numbering as in Special:Permalink/1097066258.

I use it only to make basically common sense statements. Dracophyllum 08:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should still try to see whether you can cite something less rule-breaking. Wilcox herself cites another MSc thesis that I didn't try to track down (which may have better sources), this and the predecessor of this for the stuff near "grazing", the only time you rely on her as your only source. If everything you need is also elsewhere but you'd like to recommend this thesis, perhaps put it as further reading. —Kusma (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done, used the info on website
very old website that has just been redone I think
Why not use the bibliographic data for the new website at [4]?
done
done
done
done
I've added an intro para using some more modern scholarship, but even then the sources it uses and references are the same ones I do in the section. It just makes it more transparent to have exactly who recorded what. Dracophyllum 06:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done

Responded

[edit]

@Kusma: Pretty sure I've covered everything, if you want to take another look. Dracophyllum 06:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I want to take another look. I will need to read through everything again. I may have a few more stylistic comments and I am still not happy with the MSc thesis (shouldn't be all that hard to replace by RS). On the plus side, I found Richard's original description; his Essai is not a separate publication, but part of a massive collection about Jules Dumont d'Urville's voyage with the Astrolabe. (The Essai is a bit hard to find because I've seen it cited as if it were a separate book). Probably will manage to read again within 24 hours. —Kusma (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've managed to replace it with this: https://newzealandecology.org/nzje/2278.pdf Dracophyllum 04:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second reading

[edit]

Looks much better, I found almost nothing to complain about!

done
checked
done
done

Ping Dracophyllum. —Kusma (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Kusma: Dracophyllum 22:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, promoting. —Kusma (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]