Talk:Dracophyllum fiordense

	Dracophyllum fiordense is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 19, 2021.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 12, 2021 Good article nominee Listed October 21, 2021 Featured article candidate Promoted
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 7, 2021. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the New Zealand tree Dracophyllum fiordense has distinctive spirals at the ends of its leaves?
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. New Zealand Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Dracophyllum fiordense/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 20:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "fiordland grass tree" this isn't mentioned in the article, there shouldn't be anything in the lead alone.

I've added it again in the etymology sec.

• You arbitrarily split the lead mid-description. I would just merge the first two paras.

Done

• "and Westland National Parks" put National Parks inside the pipelink.

Done I think

• "It was first described" reinforce the subject here.

Done

• "to D. menziesii" link?

Done

• Conservation status could be mentioned in the lead.

Done

• "4.92–16.40 ft" be consistent with conversion accuracy, the lead didn't go to 1/00th of a foot.

Done

• "Its branches grow ... and are rarely branched" grammar is a bit off for me, but also this seems contradictory, perhaps switch the other way, i.e. It is rarely branched but when it is,...

The line from the source is: "Branches erect and sparsely branched," which also makes no sense. I like your wording though, and have changed it to: "It is rarely branched but when it is, they grow upright and have greyish-brown bark on older sections, whilst newer growth is a yellow-brown." Which I think reads better.

• "the rachis and the pedicel (flower stem) " you tell us what a pedicel is, but not rachis (nor the previously mentioned panicle.

Reworded

• "pedicels, which have caducous" pedicels is overlinked, what does "caducous" mean?

Unlinked, caducous means bits which fall off early or easily, so I put it in brackets as the jargon to which I was referring.

• And bracteoles?

Done

• And ciliate and corolla?

Ciliate given as further information/real wording of many small hairs, corolla now done.

• And anther?

Done

• "article.[7][4]" ref order

Done

• "the genus Dracophyllum, as well" overlinked.

Done

• "D. townsonii and" overlinked.

Done

• " the Mount Cook and Westland National Parks" see earlier comment. And these seem to be piped to slightly different targets from before.

Done

• "the New Zealand Journal of Botany, however" journals are italicised.

Done

• "60 to 75 km " convert.

Done

• "fruit.[4][4] " so good you ref'ed it twice.

Fixed

• "Zealand."-> Zealand". (in the note)

Don't punctuation marks go in the quote? Or is this an exception.

• ""WELT55115"[4]" full stop before ref as this is a complete sentence.

Done

• Retrieval dates for websites should be consistently formatted.

Done

• ISBNs should be consistently presented.

I think all the ones that have ISBN's have them or am I wrong.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok @The Rambling Man: I have addressed all your comments but have found a few small bits I want to add if that's ok.

• @The Rambling Man: I've added a few more lines at the end of the description and in the distribution section if you want to have a quick check, I think that's all the information there is. Thanks, Dracophyllum 23:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]