Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of basal asterid families/archive1

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, 16 March 2023 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of basal asterid families

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

• Featured list candidates/List of basal asterid families/archive1

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of Wikipedia's science-y articles are a bit overwhelming to people who are intelligent and interested in the material, but lack the necessary background. This is what attracted me to

I promise, this is the last time I'm pinging everyone who's commented in reviewed any of the previous lists in this series (except Aza, ChrisTheDude, Giants and PresN): @AryKun, CaptainEek, Casliber, Ceoil, Eewilson, HAL333, RunningTiger123, The ed17, and Umimmak: Thanks all for your reviews. Now that you folks have helped me work out the bugs in this list series, it shouldn't be too hard for me to keep getting reviews (it usually works to review other people's stuff at FLC), but I don't want to invite people to review until they've got two nominations to look at, and per FLC rules, I need one more support on this one before I can nominate the next one, if anyone's got some time to spare. (The four lists that have been promoted so far are linked in the "See also" section of this list, if that helps.) Any drive-by comments are also welcome, of course. - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was fast, thx Ceoil. FWIW, everyone, two of the next three lists in the series (basal eudicots and Saxifragales) are going to be very short, 15 and 16 rows, if anyone wants to take a look. - Dank (push to talk) 11:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not an image review

I can't do an image review for my own nomination, but since the only table images I selected were for Actinidia, I'm verifying here that I've checked everything. Licensing:

• 45 are "own work" or equivalent with no indication at all that they aren't. 6 licenses were verified by the Flickr bot and 4 by the iNaturalist bot.
• The two illustrations are very old; no copyright problems.
• Image composition is generally excellent. Alt text is (now) always present, and spare but acceptable.
• Happy to do more research if needed. - Dank (push to talk) 04:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have enough earned trust that this is fine. Ceoil (talk) 06:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other reviews

• Support - I got nothing :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never get tired of hearing that :) - Dank (push to talk) 16:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

Always happy to be pinged for these noms.

• don't like that we start with "since 2019" rather than a general definition. Its pacey, but sort of off-centering. That said, you prob know your target audience and their dept of knowledge better than me.
• related....find the "Glossary" very helpful
• The basal asterids are highly diverse, but there are a few visible traits that can be linked to many of the families - "The basal asterids are highly diverse, but do not have many visible traits linking the families"?
• I would punctuate a lot more in the list itself, eg at the end of Mushroom-like parasites without chlorophyll that feed on tree roots should have a full stop/period.
• Some of the paired images are out of sync...eg when one is landscape and one is portrait and thus much longer.
• Leaning support Ceoil (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great ideas. All done except the final full stops/periods ... I don't have a preference, you can add or subtract, whatever looks right to you. - Dank (push to talk) 11:25, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, was watching (& since added a few full stops). Support; another visually stunning and informative page from the series. Ceoil (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind, and John says thanks too. - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ye make a great team. Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth (Eewilson)

Minor thing:

• ...ring-like nectaries, and cymes, inflorescences in which each lateral stalk either terminates in a flower or branches itself. That last part, where it expands on the meaning of cymes, is a bit confusing because it almost looks like another item in the list. Maybe adding "which are" right before "inflorescences"?

That's all. There could be other things, but I'll leave them to others if there are. Being on a mostly-Wikibreak right now makes my eyes gloss over. :) Great job! Support, with that clarification. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Wikibreaks are important, but I'm always happy for your input :) - Dank (push to talk) 16:33, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HAL

Staking out a spot for when I can review tomorrow. ~ HAL333 22:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: ? - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I've been AWOL on Wikipedia due to "real"-life demands. Here's what I got:

• "Heathlands, a typical habitat for some species in Ericaceae, the heather family." isn't a sentence.
  • MOS:CAPFRAG
    says "If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then all sentences, and any sentence fragments, in that caption should end with a period or full stop." Does that cover this case?
• Is "from the others" redundant?
  • Happy to go with whatever you decide.
• Could the lead be expanded? If you have to fluff it up, dont bother. :)
  • Look at what I did with
    List of Saxifragales families
    ... I moved the existing second paragraph down to the Glossary section, and created a new paragraph with "highlights" of some of the families. If that's the kind of expansion you're looking for, that works for me.
  • Back. Okay, yes, I'll get to work on this after breakfast. Good idea.
  • @
    List of Saxifragales families, adding a list of relevant plants to the intro that many readers are familiar with, and moving part of the intro down into the first section. (Per a request over at the other FLC, I also merged the Legend info into the main table.) See if this works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 22:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• The Oxford comma is used in some places and not in others.
  • I never mind being asked, since I miss these sometimes, but I don't see any of them in the table. The last sentence in the lead Glossary section includes: "as well as anthers attached at their base, ring-like nectaries, and cymes, which are inflorescences ...". If I left off the comma before "and cymes", then the "which" would become ambiguous (it might refer to the "ring-like nectaries and cymes").
  • If the comma is a problem, I can break this into two sentences.
• The nationalities and/or occupations of human namesakes are only sometimes listed. I would try to do so every time, if possible.
  • It's late, so I might not be thinking this through, but I'd rather not. The relevant note says "Some plants were named for naturalists (unless otherwise noted)" ... I can make that more prominent if that would help. What I'd rather not do is try to describe what someone was in one or a few words (beyond what the note says) ... it's generally more complicated than that, which the reader will find out if they click on the biography link and get the full story. I struggled with how to handle this for all the etymology lists, too, and discussed it, and wound up with this compromise ... I'd prefer to be consistent, so if I change it here, that's going to mean a lot of changes and judgment calls and mind-reading for a bunch of very long lists. But I'm open to suggestions.
  • Turns out I was right, I wasn't thinking it through :) I can put "naturalist" in front of the names rather than after. Doing that now. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I just undid this edit, after noticing that this change didn't entirely work here and won't work at all for most of these lists. The problem is that adding the word "naturalist" for each of these people invites an argument in each case over the best way to describe them. That's going to fail in a big way, eventually. Most of the one-word descriptions would be inadequate ... even one-sentence descriptions are going to be misinterpreted by many readers, without further explanation. They're all naturalists, and it's not misleading to say that ... further details can be found at the links for each human namesake. - Dank (push to talk) 11:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The references are very clean.

That's all I noticed. Solid work. ~ HAL333 04:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good comments. Let me know if I can help with anything. - Dank (push to talk) 05:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HAL333: Was there anything else? - Dank (push to talk) 18:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333 never returned to this after a month, so I'm going to go ahead and promote. --PresN 00:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot
  goes through.