I had intended doing this one first as I got some to grow in my garden and like it more than Isopogon anemonifolius but found the first one came together more readily. Anyway, I am a bit of a Noah and like to do these articles in twos. This should (hopefully) have a minimum of things to tweak. Melburnian and I will take a look at tweak promptly. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 23:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - can you verify the machine-generated details on File:Ianethifolius_maranoa.jpg? Also, while I'm here, {{reflist}} should use colwidth. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
fixed both....dang I had a cheapo camera 12 years ago...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 08:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: My concerns were mostly addressed. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most of the article text is in excellent shape, although I think the Cultivation section can be improved. There I found too many consecutive sentences that begin with "It", and in the second half of the paragraph there are a series of rather brief sentences that (to me) hinder the flow. Perhaps you could improve that a little? The Description section needs a clear image of just the leaves as the current pictures are blurred from DoF. Otherwise, I don't see any other obvious issues. Nice work. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think both images provide value. Perhaps move the first image down to the Distribution and habitat section? The other changes you made seem fine. Could the article explain what is meant by "Young plants can get leggy"? Praemonitus (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (leaning support). The phrasing with an erect (upright) habit,[2] generally taller on more sheltered areas such as woodlands leaves me puzzled, can you make this more understandable to non botanists - "upright habit"? Wot? Overall, very good, but reading through still. Have looked at sources, all reputable, and correctly formated fyiw. Spot checks to follow. Ceoil (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
French botanist Michel Gandoger described four taxa in 1919 as similar to I. anethifolius. I. confertus was a plant from Rylstone on the Central Tablelands, which he distinguished by its crowded leaves that - as written, with all the italix, the punct is confusion. Can you break up the sentences differently. Ceoil (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I split it up a bit now...it's listy unfortunately and there ain't much I can do about that.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 02:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notwithstanding, Support now anyhow from me. Ceoil (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"and less than 1 mm in diameter." Is there no conversion here because there is no appropriate equivalent? I see you do convert 1 mm further down, so should be here as well.
One to go, then I can support. FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - all issues addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by MPS1992
Some relatively minor prose things;
"The individual flowers arise out of the central woody globe in a spiral pattern,[3] and are around 1.2 cm (1⁄2 in) long.[4] They are straight stalkless structures that arise out of" - is there an easy way to diminish the impact of this repetition?
Three of the five paragraphs in the Taxonomy section start with the formula "(nationality) botanist (name)" - it would be good to vary this further if possible.
"it does not tolerate waterlogging. A part-shaded position is the preferred location, but one in full sun is tolerated.[7] Plants tolerate" - again a little too much repetition here.
"Seeds germinate after 30 to 60 days.[7] Flowering can take several years from seed.[4]" - despite the sourcing of some of it, would some or all of this fit better in the Description section rather than in Cultivation? Such changes might also help to break the run of short choppy sentences here (these two and the one following).
Icombined two sentences. The material specifically refers to cultivation conditions, which is why I left it there.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the lead, and perhaps partly related to the above point, I worry about "I. anethifolius grows readily in the garden if located in a sunny or part-shaded spot". I think this means gardens in England or similar climes - I doubt it grows readily in a sunny spot in Malaysia or a part-shaded spot in Siberia. Maybe this could be altered a little.
The sources don't really specify - they are generally written for Australian audiences, and the only parameter I have is for frost hardiness. They might very well grow ok in Malaysia as Australia can get pretty warm too.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yikes! I missed your comments! Your changes look fine. Will get cracking on above things.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All my concerns have been addressed and I am happy to Support. MPS1992 (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One quick query on "The species can be propagated by cutting or seed, which germinate after 30 to 60 days." Would this be better as "The species can be propagated by cutting or from seeds, which germinate after 30 to 60 days", or something like that? Otherwise we seem to have a plural verb with a singular subject. MPS1992 (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was using "seed" like a collective noun, which is not uncommon in scientific literature, but have changed it to make it less weird-soundingCas Liber (talk·contribs) 19:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Edwininlondon
Very little to comment on. Looks solid.
the common name narrow-leaved drumsticks is mentioned in the lead but not in the main body, so doesn't seem to have any source
added, aaaand realised I have been unconsciously mistranscribing it for about 15 years :PCas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The only book in Cited text seems to have a different publisher and title than listed on Amazon. Amazon has for same ISBN Publisher: HarperCollins and a longer title: "& All Other Plants in The Australian Proteaceae Family"
I have the hard copy on my shelf. I guess this explains it...mergers and all...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
source spot check: 1, 6, 14 16 ok
for 22 I couldn't quite see "lack of method" in Erickson's description
It is a succinct way of saying,『he book reflected, in a revolutionary, challenging way, Kuntze’s strong opposition to the then current rules of botanical nomenclature, rules which had been established at the International Botanical Congress held in Paris in 1867. He insisted on the use of many generic names which predated Linnaeus’ Species plantarum of 1753, and claimed that many plants were wrongly named as the result of informal mutual agreements based on unwritten rules.』- actually I changed it to "poor method" as he agreed there was a method, just not a good one. Open to wordsmithing on this one...Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain(talk) 15:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
