Talk:Eucalyptus rhodantha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Eucalyptus rhodantha/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Eewilson (talk · contribs) 09:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Details[edit]

...more to come.... must feed special needs cats. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. Lots of stuff here intermixed with my save a couple of hours ago. I believe it's the middle of the night and early Sunday morning in Western Australia, so I'm good. :) This is all I'm doing today (Saturday here) and it covers all my thoughts at this time (although I may have forgotten something). I probably won't look at it again until after I start hearing from you. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

  • My review will be focused on GA and good plants article criteria, which are not contradictory. Certain sections and information are required content for a good plants article (which is part of "coverage" as required for GA criteria), yet are not as comprehensive as what would be for a featured plants article. If you do think I get carried away with what is covered here, let me know and I can rethink.
  • I made some minor copyedits in the lead and description for readability.
  • Spell out genus name the first time used at each 2-level section and possibly other lower-level sections if needed
  • Eucalyptus rhodantha var. rhodantha is the same as the species minus any accepted varieties. This may seem a random comment, but I may mention it later.
  • First usage of a measurement should always be spelled out (param to {{Convert}} is |abbr=off). I always do it in the lead as well as first usage in the body.
  • I am not yet looking for copyright violations. I did Earwig and found one that I think was an uncited copy from the article, not to it, so I'm not worried. I have neither checked nor compared sources because after changes, I would have to do it all over again, so I will do that later. Make sure all changes have citations and are sourced, as I'm sure you will.
  • Have added some replies today and need to take a break then do more before moving again into Ecology and after. See my changes in this review as of today (Dec. 14th). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speciesbox[edit]

  • While the image may represent the plant from a distance, it is not clear enough to be used for the main image of the article. See what else you can find. This one may be better used elsewhere in the article.
    • The image was the only one on wikimedia showing the habit of the plant, have swapped with image showing foliage and flowers – Hughesdarren
  • Needs synonyms
  • Needs map (not from POWO which only shows all of Western Australia shaded, but something of more value than that)
  • Needs citation for status (goes in param "status_system_ref")
    • Added most recent IUCN status (en instead of vu) IUCN is most recent (2019) compared to EPBC (2000) – Hughesdarren
  • Probably should have a second status and status system, and there are params for that (an international one like IUCN since it is on the IUCNRedList)
  • Make sure the EPBC status and references are the latest
  • Needs varieties if they are accepted; note that POWO now synonymizes the variety petiolaris to the species and accepts no infraspecies for E. rhodantha. So at the very least, if you are going to include the variety and the autonym in the speciesbox, put a footnote saying "See Taxonomy section" with a link to the Taxonomy section.
    • I'm going to need to seek advice on this, Could you please give me your thoughts as which would be accepted? @Gderrin: @Plantdrew: – Hughesdarren
      • Still open, as well as in the Taxonomy section. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added the synonym entry (with ref) a while back when the taxonomy section was updated. Hughesdarren (talk) 07:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hughesdarren: indent with an additional bullet (asterisk) and make sure to sign each comment with four tildes. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, will do. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Easy to forget (this is a test to see if "reply" automatically adds a bullet if it needs one) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It added two bullets and a colon. Bad form, LOL. At least it automatically does the signature. :) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

The lead is sparse and will need summarized and simplified information on taxonomy, habitat, ecology, conservation. I've gotten fairly good at writing leads, so we should be able to come up with a good one. Most people don't read past the lead, so they should be able to get the basic information they want there whereas at the same time, being enticed to read more. It could be said to be the most difficult part of the article. See MOS:LEAD.

The following information is in the lead but not in the body. It should be in the body and sourced. Reminder that the lead is a simplified summary of the article body, not a sole holder of facts that will not be presented in the article.

  • endemic to Western Australia
    • fixed with ref. Hughesdarren (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • For this one, POWO (the source) says "native", not "endemic"; the body in D&H correctly uses the source's term "native"; and, you don't need the footnote citation in the lead (but there's no rule against having it; there is, however, a problem with the discrepancy). See MOS:LEADCITE. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still open. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was hoping to stumble across a source saying endemic but I've given up and changed to native and linked to native species. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • smooth bark
  • heart-shaped leaves (body says "egg-shaped")
    • The Euclid ref says heart-shaped, the flora of australia says orbicular, I've edited to say rounded to heart shaped. Hughesdarren (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is "rounded to heart-shaped" accurate? That would imply a source says "rounded to heart-shaped" meaning a source says transitional shapes also exist. We can't assume it's what is meant, but what you can do is say "rounded" with a citation for that one, then "or", then "heart-shaped" with the other citation (both cited in the body).
      • Also, "orbicular" is better defined as a circle, or "circular" to use the adjective, and to use the simpler term. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • fixed Hughesdarren (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • other sources say to including the original desctiption by Blakely and the conservaton advice. I'm changing back to "to". Hughesdarren (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm confused by this comment. Changed what back to "to"? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry this sort of continued from the statement above. I changed the leaf shape back to "rounded to heart-shaped", I checked the other sources (Blakely and Environment) both of these say "to" not "and".Hughesdarren (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • When you get to the body, you can use redirects to Glossary of leaf morphology where leaf shapes are described and defined. The wikilink you can use for "orbicular" is Orbicular (botany), and it goes directly there. You could use [[Orbicular (botany)|circular]] and [[Cordate (leaf shape))|heart-shaped]] for Wikilinks. I wouldn't wikilink in the lead because it could become a WP:SEAOFBLUE. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • fruits are pendent
  • Ultimately, the lead will need to summarize the article and will need some expansion. Feel free to expand it at any time. See MOS:INTRO, or MOS:LEAD for expanded reading. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence The species was listed as vulnerable in 2000 according to the Australian Government Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999[7] and listed as endangered according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature in 2019.[1] Citations not really needed here; the info is covered in the body and cited there. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "endangered" probably should link to Endangered species (IUCN status). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Description[edit]

  • "It has smooth greyish a pinkish bark." The "a" looks like a typo, but I didn't correct it because I didn't know if it should be "greyish to pinkish" or "greyish and pinkish" or "greyish or pinkish", and looking in the source in order to fix it is out of scope of my job as a reviewer. :)
  • The section needs to be split out and expanded. Items need to be covered from root to crown to flowers to fruit, in that order. Detailed coverage of the morphology is important. I would expect at least a paragraph each on the following. If enough information exists, they could have subsection headers, which I personally like anyway for readability and follow-along-ability, but not required.
    • root and lignotuber;
    • stem, its height, characteristics; if data is sparse, then combine it with the root and lignotuber subsection/paragraph;
    • leaves (one suffices probably if the leaves don't change based on their age or location on the stem, more if they do)
    • flowers (buds, parts, colors, etc.)
    • fruits
      • updated all these areas with additional information using common terminology where appropriate. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template#Morphology: "Description of roots, stems, leaves, inflorescence, and fruit should use standardized technical expressions such as those in the Glossary of botanical terms, supplemented by plain English to define these terms for a general reader if possible, so they don't have to be constantly chasing down links to read the article. This is especially the case if the botanical term is very obscure." This jives with MOS:JARGON on the main MOS page.
    Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add Chromosomes subsection if chromosome counts have been done for this species. If you find something, I can help with wording if needed, as I have had to reword it for GAs before.
    • I can't find anything giving an actual chromosome count. Any pointers for websites to look at? Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move similar species from Ecology to somewhere in this section; elaboration on how they are similar/different could be done now or saved for later.

New stuff since the expansion:

  • "As for most species of mallee" Maybe "As with most species of mallee"?
  • "This allows the plant to regenerate..." Instead of "This", just say what allows the plant to regenerate, for clarity.
  • "The stems branch from ground level and spread outward to a width of about 3 m (10 ft) from the centre... ." What stems? Here, are we still talking about the epicormic branching? Also, can you explain what is meant by "spread outward to a width...from the centre"? And do they branch above the ground or branch underground and then pop up later elsewhere, as
  • "It has smooth grey to greyish brown and pinkish grey bark on the stems." Slightly convoluted. Can you reword a bit?
    • Reworded. Still fairly convoluted. Hughesdarren (talk) 06:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Works now. I took out the redundant "coloured"s because pink, grey, etc. are colors. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is meant by "crown"?
  • Same "round- to heart-shaped" comment here as from the lead comment, above.
    • Fixed. Hughesdarren (talk) 06:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Partly done. There's still an issue here, and before here, where the two shapes from two sources (orbicular and heart-shaped) have been made into a "to" situation which implies there are shapes in between, although the sources don't say there are, am I correct? So I still wonder if it should be "circular and heart-shaped" or "circular or heart-shaped" instead of "circular to heart-shaped". Maybe you already addressed that. Humor me and explain it again if you did. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sort of, I mentioned it in the lead comments above - I changed the leaf shape back to "rounded to heart-shaped", I checked the other sources (Blakely and Environment) both of these say "to" not "and".Hughesdarren (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section has some additional terms that could be linked: "reticulation" could link to "Reticulate leaf", "taper to a longer point" could also use the term and link to it, midrib, etc. I have done a few, but more can be done.
  • "The older mature leaves are opposite..." Only the older, mature leaves are opposite? That's how I read this.
  • Wikilink [[Opposite leaf|opposite]] if not already by here.
  • "lack a stalk, attaching directly to the stem". You used "sessile" in the lead. Use "sessile" here in addition this, and use the longer description in the lead.
  • Wikilink [[Petiole (botany)|stalk]] if it's not already linked by here.
  • "the intramarginal separated from the margin" The intramarginal what? Veins?
    • Yes, fixed. Hughesdarren (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. I made an additional change, so now it reads "have dense reticulation with intramarginal veins (veins separated from the margin)." Correct if incorrect, please. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "attached to the filaments along the backs" Maybe, "attached along the backs of the filaments"?
  • "The numerous filaments are sub-compressed into may rows..." That should be "many rows", right?
  • "The style is long and linear while the stigma is more tapered with four or five cavities present to the ovary." I don't understand what "present" means here.
    • Changed to present, leading to the ovary". Or should it just be "the stigma is more tapered with four or five cavities present to the ovary"?. Hughesdarren (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct this if I'm wrong," but I think it was the term "present to" or just the word "present" that was getting me. I removed it and now it reads "with four or five cavities leading to the ovary". Is this still accurate? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "exserted valves" Maybe a simpler synonym to "exserted"? Or is "exserted" a misspelling (or Australian spelling) of "excerted"?
    • changed to "projecting or exserted" with a link to exserted. I've never seen it spelt as excerted maybe it is an Australian thing. Hughesdarren (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. I don't even know if "excerted" is a word. :) But now with the Wikilink and "projected", it's fine. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "grey-brown to dark brown to black seeds." Should the "to"s be "or"s here?
  • The eucalyptus I am familiar with has a pleasant, clean, refreshing odor. Do your sources mention a scent for E. rhodantha, and if so, can you include it?
    • The only source that gives it a mention is [[1]] but it doesn't describe it in anyway. There is plenty on the general smell of Eucalypts but not for these species. Hughesdarren (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm. Okay, aussie green thumb is probably considered a blog, so you can do one of two things: leave it out, as it currently is (faster); or, add something saying Euycalyps have scent, etc. I'm okay with either one. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I might leave it out unless I stumble across something that is species specific. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Yes, best to leave it out. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New one:

  • "Smaller branchlets have no oil glands in the pith and have a rounded cross-section." There has been no mention of oil glands up to this point. Do branches have oil glands, just not the smaller ones? Because as a reader, I'm left going, "yeah, okay, so ...?" Oil glands are also mentioned after this. But what I'm getting at is that there needs to be something that says the species has oil glands, and explain them. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Euclid source is the only one that says "no oil glands in the pith", no others mention it so I removed it in the section on branches. In the leaf section I linked oil glands to Plant secretory tissue. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy and naming[edit]

  • Recommend to call this "Taxonomy" with a subsection "Etymology" or "Name"
  • Subsection "Varieties". Here discuss that sources do not agree on the acceptance of varieties. POWO is here: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:593308-1. If the varieties aren't listed in the speciesbox, then the body will still need the variety/ies discussed in this way. A featured article could go into detail about why it is no longer accepted by POWO (and possibly other sources), but for a GA, only discussing the disagreements and similarieties among the sources is necessary.
    • Added that POWO does not accept but Eucalyptus rhodantha var. × petiolaris. Was not too sure what else to do here, Taxonomy is not my strong suit.Hughesdarren (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Autonym does not typically have an authority because it was automatically created when the first infraspecies was created, unless you find something that contradicts this.
    • Do you mean change Eucalyptus rhodantha var. × petiolaris Blakely be changed to Eucalyptus rhodantha var. × petiolaris? Excuse my ignorance, my grasp of the taxonomic stuff is poor. Probably the reason I left this bit for last. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template#Taxonomy. I go by this with the idea that a FA will try to include everything, and a GA will include these basic items (note that the article already has some of this):
    • History, including what you have in the first paragraph plus the current location of the holotype and any other type specimens. If the holotype, isotype(s), etc., are available online in a virtual herbarium, say that with a citation.
      • Added some more text from Flora of Australia. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bonus: if one of type specimens has a free, commons-usable image, you could add it to this section. I always think that's super cool. A bonus, though, but would be really good for FA.
    • Classification
    • Etymology – of genus, specific epithet, and common name(s)
  • Why is E. rhodantha var. × petiolaris treated as a hybrid variety and not a straight hybrid? If it's not a variety of E. rhodantha but is a hybrid of E. rhodantha var. rhodantha and E. pyriformis, then shouldn't we treat it as a hybrid and not a variety? And if it is a hybrid, not a variety, then I would think that would eliminate E. rhodantha var. rhodantha altogether...? What do the latest sources say? All of this needs to be covered in Taxonomy.
  • related to that... Subdivision treatment in species articles is a bit different than for Genus and up. These are the infraspecies, and their descriptions, D&H, etc., don't go here, just their taxonomies. If you decide to cover the varieties as accepted, then they need a blurb sentence in the lead, and coverage in each section. If you go with POWO and consider them not valid at this point, coverage would be considered in a historical context and would not need as detailed a treatment, so coverage in taxonomy in a way I have already discussed will be sufficient. If still viewed as accepted by Australian authorities, then they probably should be treated as such here. So that's an important thing that must be determined and dealt with appropriately. I hit this type of situation when working on Symphyotrichum lateriflorum. There were several varieties formerly accepted that are treated by primary authorities now as synonyms of the species. But because some of them are still accepted by certain authorities or in certain locations, I still covered them to some extent in Taxonomy. If you want examples of how varieties have been integrated in a species article, I know of at least one that I've been working on and another partially done, and I'm sure there are others that I haven't had a hand in.
  • (For FA, Phylogeny including a cladogram could be added, but not necessary for a GA.)

Since changes:

  • "(Blakely initially gave the name Eucalyptus rhodantha var. petiolaris, now considered to be a hybrid between E. rhodantha and E. pyriformis, and is cited as Eucalyptus rhodantha var. × petiolaris.)" I think this sentence is not parenthental.
    Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Classification – simplify and wikilink some terminology.
    Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before the first use of the name of an authority (e.g., William Blakely), say who they were (e.g., "Australian botanist William Blakely").
    Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution and habitat[edit]

  • Rainfall is reported in millimetres there, or centimetres? I think the latter is more appropriate, and remember to use the conversion to inches for those (like us in the US) who often think non-metrically from birth.

Ecology[edit]

  • The first paragraph looks like it should go in the Description section, including the similar species.
  • Combine "Ecology" and "Reproduction" sections; you can probably make Reproduction a subsection that, in addition to what it has, includes some of the stuff in Ecology.
  • This text in Ecology: "it produces few flowers per plant" conflicts with this text in Reproduction: "as plants can have numerous flowers in different stages at the same time". Few and numerous are opposites.
    • The source does say several but the meaning I'm getting is the entire tree has few flowers but all in different stages of development changed to "It produces few flowers per plant compared to other species of Eucalypt and "as plants can have flowers in different stages at the same time". Hughesdarren (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmmm. If you say "compared to other species of Eucalypt", then you will need a source that says that. Does the source say that? The second change as well. Verify that the sources say that. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Individual plants differ in the number of flowers, time, and duration of flowering." How do they differ?
  • Pollinators can be another subsection; is there data on other pollinators, or just the two mentioned? Knowing how they pollinate (since they are not insects or wind, two common pollination methods), is important, so add that.
    • More added. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comments. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Port Lincoln Ringneck redirects to Australian ringneck. Does the source use "Port Lincoln ringneck"? Also, except for the proper name Port Lincoln, the rest of the common name should be lowercase.
          • I think the ref has got the common name incorrect. The species name list in the source is Barnardius zonarius which is the Australian ringneck. the Port Lincoln rigneck is B. z. zonarius. I've updated to Australian ringneck.Hughesdarren (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is "behaviour" the correct Australian English spelling (currently says behavior in this section), and is this article using Australian English?
        • "the yellow-throated miner are thought to" maybe "the yellow-throated miner are known to"? Or if it's a hypothesis, I suppose "thought to" is okay.
          • The source says thought... mostly likely as these birds are the most common, but the source doesn't clarify. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • This next part isn't making sense: "especially well-suited to pollination as they are able to collect the nectar easily and deposit it on the stigma efficiency" because collecting nectar and depositing it on the stigma isn't how pollination works, is it? They'd be somehow collecting pollen, perhaps inadvertently, and then dropping it on the stigma, like bees do... right? Let me know and maybe clarify this somehow.
          • Yes, you are right but this is link the source says. I've clarifired by saying pollen and nectar. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again "It is thought that the larger flowers..." wording? Thought? Known? Hypothesized?
        • "The only mammal thought to act as a pollinator..." maybe "The only mammal known to act as a pollinator..."?
  • OPTIONAL: Information about the pollen, if available, could go here, even if it's just a bit.
    • This is optional and may not be available anyway. Not necessary for GA. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bud weevils and Port Lincoln parrots as well as other destructive animals can be put in their own subsection; are there others?
    • Put in subsection, can't find any others. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Subsection for this could be called "Pests" or something similiar. Do any diseases affect the plant? If you find anything, then it could be "Pests and diseases". Sometimes you will find specialized destructors at the genus level in sources. (Same with pollinators.) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could only find the root rot bit. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Q: "The plant also is thought to be susceptible to Phytophthora root-rot..." Thought to be? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is what the source says pretty much verbatim. I'm guessing that root root hasn't spread that far north but most species of Eucalyptus are susceptible, so noone would really know for sure Hughesdarren (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • SOMEWHAT OPTIONAL: Images in GAs are important. Images of some of the pollinators and destructors, if available, especially cool if on this species or at least on a Eucalyptus, would add value, especially with good captions.
    • Adding "somewhat optional" here because if you find an image of the honeyeater or the little bitty opossum-mouse mentioned, that might be a good add, but don't make it a priority to seek out an image of everything that lands on the plant. :) (Not saying I would do that, or anything... <<eyeroll>>) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPTIONAL: If there are flower images of high enough quality that you can make crops in new extracted images to use here to show the flower parts, that would be educational and important. Even just one close up could suffice for now. Another possibility would be to put such an image in the Flower part of the Description section.
    • Lower priority. I tend to use a lot of descriptive images and also tend to forget that for a GA, illustration is important, but additional illustration with images can be good for a FA. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template#Ecology for ideas if you want elaboration on what I say here.

Another:

  • Could you clarify this sentence? "The inference for the higher survival rate is selection is operating over the entirety of the life cycle and the heterozygous offspring survive more often in all periods of the cycle." – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source says "...This suggests that selection is operating during the life cycle and that heterozygotes are more likely to survive at all stages" would "It is thought that the higher survival rate is due to selection operating over the entirety of the life cycle and the heterozygous offspring survive more often in all periods of the cycle" be better? and link selection to natural selection. What do you think? Hughesdarren (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes that's definitely better. Can you change it? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction[edit]

  • See above in Ecology about subsectioning this in that section.
  • I removed the contraction (MOS:CONTRACTIONS).
  • Protandry needs explanation as it is a very technical term. (Also, doesn't that term specifically apply to animals with a different term for plants? Not sure.)
    • I added a brief explanantion in brackets (My understanding, I'm no expert) Hughesdarren (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: "(if its function of the flower is male then female)" might want to word that a bit differently... see what else you can come up with. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The definition copied from Sequential hermaphroditism which says A flower is protogynous if its function is first female, then male, and protandrous if its function is male then female. would (The flower functions first as male then as female) be any better? Or rewording free dictionary to give (a flower where the male reproductive organs mature prior to the female reproductive organs)? I think the free dictionary version is better. I'll add that in. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink mixed mating (if there is an appropriate article or article section), outcross, self-pollination, inbreeding, selection pressures (may need to briefly explain what this means and how it affects the species)
  • Short explanation of "heterozynous", perhaps parenthetical or between commas (is that a misspelling that should be "heterozygous"? if so, there is a redirect for "heterozygous" which you should use instead of "zygote")
  • "...most likely the result of mating between closely related plants" needs explanation; in this case, what is meant by "closely related"? How is one plant closely related to another one other than just being the same species, and if it's just another plant of the same species, then what is spectacular about that in that it would be considered inbreeding? Is the species clonal (meaning that another "plant" would be actually the same "plant")? If it does spread by colonization via rhizomes as well as by seed, that needs to be mentioned here as well as in the roots area of Description.
    • The reference uses that same term of "closely related" throughout without explaining. The inbreeding is only through pollination though, not through the root systems.Hughesdarren (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation[edit]

More:

  • Comment: "It is believed that inbreeding has resulted in weaker plants..." same concern here as "it is thought that" in Reproduction section. This type of wording can be consider weasel words, but not necessarily. See if there is a more precise way of wording it (and the others).
  • Hmmm: I'm not sure what to think about the "may have" wording in the last two sentences of the first paragraph in this section. What does the source say?
  • Caps: If the status terms are official names of statuses, use proper name capitalization, and you don't need quotation marks in that case.
  • Use As of template for dates that could become out of date; I implemented these.
  • Changed link I changed link from Endangered species to Endangered species (IUCN status) for the status.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use in horticulture[edit]

  • Is gardening the only use? There is no history of a medicinal or religious use? I think you could change the header to just "Uses" and do a some basic expansion of what is there. It kinda just jumps right in without an introduction so I was like, "Whoa.... what just happened?" – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed heading to "Uses". Added a little more, including a dodgy source (BayGallery). This is all I can find. Hughesdarren (talk)
      • Yeah, go ahead and remove this sentence and the source: Indigenous Australians are known to use the flowers of E. rhodantha as a sweetener. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

REFERENCES, SOURCING, ETC.[edit]

  • Blakely does not talk about the crown leaves/juvenile leaves (unless I missed it), and there is no citation after the quoted two sentences, below, about the crown. This part then leads into mature leaves that do get covered in Blakely and are cited with Blakely. What's the source for the crown and crown leaves?
The leaf bearing portion of the plant, the crown, is composed entirely of juvenile leaves that are sessile, lacking a stalk and attach directly to the stem. They are arranged in opposite pairs and their bases surround the stem. The leaves are dull silver-grey or glaucous on both sides, circular to heart-shaped, 45–80 mm (1.8–3.1 in) long and 30–75 mm (1.2–3.0 in) wide. ← Needs citation(s) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Description: 1.5–4 metres, source cited is "fact sheet". Source says that it grows to 4 m but does not mention a lower limit of height.
  • From Description, second sentence: As with most species of mallee.... Source cited is "fact sheet", actually says "As with all mallee species of eucalypt..." which is not the same.
  • From Description, significant prose–source discrepancies here, meaning possibly the wrong source got cited somehow? Source for this portion cited is "fact sheet".
The flower buds are arranged singly in leaf axils on a down-turned peduncle of length 10–20 mm (0.39–0.79 in), with a pedicel of length 8–20 mm (0.31–0.79 in). The large flowers can be up to 8 cm (3.1 in) in diameter and bright red to pink, or occasionally yellow.
    • Fixed (Euclid)
  • flower buds singly in leaf axils
    • this source does not mention flower buds in leaf axils
Euclid says "Inflorescence axillary unbranched, pendulous..." (this is now the reference) In botany axillary means "the upper angle between a leaf stalk or branch and the stem or trunk from which it is growing." [2] Do I need to add that as a reference to? Hughesdarren (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • down-turned peduncle
  • peduncle length 10–20 mm
    • source says "peduncles to 3.5 cm long"
      • Euclid says 10-20mm, Changed to 10-35mm with both sources included.Hughesdarren (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • pedicel length 8–20 mm
    • This is what Euclid says which was the next ref, added in again. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • flowers up to 8 cm in diameter
    • source says "staminous flowers... to 7.5 cm in breadth"
  • flowers bright red to pink, ocasionally yellow
    • source says "bright red, or rarely creamy yellow to white"

So, since there's a problem here, I wonder if there are problems other places. Please go through and compare the entire article with the sources cited for each part and correct or cite differently if needed. Let me know when you're done, and then I'll look again. I don't want to run through the whole source review until you have verified first. I know some of this was there before you started working on it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem was all the refs were bunched at the end of the paragraph to begin with and I had assumed this was the correct order. Once one was separated/moved stuff the whole lot had to be readded. Will check through the rest of the article and let you know how I go. I'll mkae some notes as I go. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahhh... that makes a whole lot of sense and is a great example of why sources should not all be bunched at the end. Either nobody knows where to look for the information or they have to look through several sources to find it. Appreciate your sorting this all out. I stepped through all your changes in history and will give the article another good read, then we might be done! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taxonomy section all checks out. Hughesdarren (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Distribution and habitat section checks out. Hughesdarren (talk)
  • The Ecology section checks out. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Conservation section checks out. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Uses section had a few changes made but checks out now. The last paragraph on Aboriginal uses is sourced but apart from the Guardia source the rest are flimsy. I don' thave a copy of A Gardener's Guide to Eucalypts. Australia: Rigby but only a small ammount of texxt is reliant upon it as a source. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the sourcing is all good now. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discrepancies[edit]

Detailed read-through. There are still source-prose discrepancies. Here the list for Description and Taxonomy, and I'll have to pick it up later to do more.

  • The stems branch from ground level from the lignotuber and spread outward and upward to a width of about 3 m (10 ft) from the origin.[6] ← that doesn't seem to be the correct source for this sentence. Maybe Blakely, except he doesn't say "upward", just "outward". The rest of the info in this sentence does match Blakely, though.
  • Flowering occurs from July or September to December or January... sometimes creamy white. – source given is Euclid and actually reads "Flowering has been recorded in February, May, July, August and September", which is completely different. It also says "rarely creamy white", and the prose says "sometimes". .... Not only that, but in the sentence directly before, the prose says about the flowers ...bright red to pink, or occasionally yellow.[9] If the flower colors are in the previous sentence, they don't need to be here (especially if they don't agree!).
    • Changed the source to Florabase and added February from Euclid, reworded the flower colours and included both sources. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mature buds... glaucous, finely ribbed... Source, Euclid, says "often finely ribbed".
  • Holotypes are held at the National Herbarium of New South Wales[6] and at Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.[14] There is only one holotype (unless, of course, there are others for synonyms, but there could be isotypes); I see the holotype is at Kew. So that second source for this sentence is good. But the first part where you use Euclid as a source of a "holotype" at the NSW herbarium, I don't see anything on that page about a type specimen.
    • I had assumed the specimen marked "HOLO NSW349182" was the Herbarium of NSW holotype that was in the Euclid source. Can't find any mention of whether it is an isotype or other on [3]. Removed now. Hughesdarren (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still have to do the rest. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hughesdarren, just wanted to let you know I've been a little overwhelmed IRL and on Wikipedia and will get back to this soon! Possibly later today, but more likely tomorrow (Friday). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • No hurry, thanks for all your efforts, I spent all yesterday in transit anyway and have only just got back home. Happy holidays. Hughesdarren (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Happy Holidays to you as well! :) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing...

  • The map contradicts what is written in D&H section. Perhaps the map needs modification?
    • The map agrees with the maps in sources provided (3+4), (excluding the Perth specimens), I'm not too sure what to do for this....
      • I think the best thing to do would be in the D&H section, say that the sources don't agree (be specific), also giving the dates of the reports in the prose if there is a significant difference. It could be that sources 3&4 show a historic range of occurrences/specimens whereas what is in D&H is more recent and represents a later study of the sites. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • I had thought of that, but couldn't find mention of historical vs current. Although, come to think of it, when I went through the sources I think I did see a more recent map of the survey. I'll check this out again and maybe redo the map (I'll let you know when this is done). Hughesdarren (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Redone map and updated to IUCN ref. Hughesdarren (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add page numbers (or other location identifiers if page numbers are not applicable) that represent the source of information for each of the citations for the following references: 7, 8, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 30, and 32. If the source is cited in only one location, you can put the page in the citation definition if you choose. If it is used in more than one place, see WP:REFPAGE, {{R}}, and {{Rp}}. I can't really check these until there are page numbers. See also comments for source number 9.
7. Threatened Species Scientific Committee (13 July 2017). "Conservation Advice Eucalyptus rhodantha (rose mallee)"
8. Blakely, William F.; McKie, Ernest Norman; Steedman, Henry (1938). "Description of four new species and two varieties of eucalypts"
19. Parker, Cheryl M.; Percy-Bower, Julia M. (2015). "Updates to Western Australia's vascular plant census for 2015"
20. "Interim recovery plan No. 229 (Eucalyptus rhodantha) Interim Recovery Plan 2006-2011"
22. "Part 2 - AG401 - Biodiversity Conservation Act 2016 - Biodiversity Conservation (species) order 2022"
23. "Conservation codes for Western Australian Flora and Fauna"
25. "Advice to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) on Amendments to the list of Threatened Species under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)"
30. Holliday, I.; Watton, G. (1980). A Gardener's Guide to Eucalypts
32. "Traditional ecological knowldege"
  • completed with the exception of ref 30 - I don't have a copy of this book and was unable find an online version.Hughesdarren (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. I did see one weird thing; in the very last sentence, are the page numbers meant to be together, or do they each go to one of those sources at the end? Eucalypts are culturally important to Aboriginal Australians for many uses and meanings.[31][32]:5:9:11[33] I think you may just want one call to {{Rp}} using the |pp= parameter with a comma separated list, like this: |pp=5,9,11. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using |pp=5,9,11, it wouldn't display properly. I've used instead, although it looks much the same as before. Is this OK? Hughesdarren (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eucalyptus rhodantha is native to western parts of Western Australia[12]... POWO is the source and does not say "western parts" but just says "Western Australia".
  • Too-close-for-comfort-paraphrasing. Can you do something about this?
    • The prose in D&H reads: Aside from a plant recorded at Eneabba Creek in 1953, the species occurs only at Three Springs and Watheroo. Eneabba Creek and nearby areas were observed in August 1991 but no other populations were found. Since then, the region has been cleared of native vegetation for agriculture.
    • The source "Rose Mallee (Eucalyptus rhodantha) Recovery Plan 1999-2002" reads as follows: Apart from a 1953 collection from Eneabba Creek, all the specimens are from the Three Springs and Watheroo sites. Eneabba Creek and surrounding areas were surveyed during August 1991 but no other populations were located. The region has been largely cleared of native vegetation for agriculture.
      • Changed to "All the plants collected are from the Watheroo and Three Springs locations with the exception of one plant recorded from Eneabba Creek in 1953. Eneabba Creek and nearby areas were observed in August 1991 but no other populations were found. Since that time, the bulk of the natural flora has been cleared for agricultural purposes." Hope this doesn't sound too clunkyHughesdarren (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same here, only not quite as close-paraphrasing:
    • Prose: Two moderately undisturbed populations of E. rhodantha occur on uncleared private land in the vicinity of Watheroo. The rest are found on vacant and grazed farmland and degraded road borders.
    • Source: There are only two relatively undisturbed populations of E. rhodantha. They occur on uncleared private land in the Watheroo area. The remainder occur on cleared and grazed farmland and degraded road verges.
      • Changed to "In the vicinity of Watheroo two moderately undisturbed populations of E. rhodantha are situated private land that remains uncleared. The rest are found on vacant land , farmland used for grazing livestock and degraded borders along roads." Hughesdarren (talk) 13:45, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you download the IUCN Supplementary Information PDF (this link) from the IUCN Red List page for this species and use anything in it? If so, could you sort that out so that it is a different reference or citation from just the web page, and then cite page numbers, where applicable? It is 28 pages long, and I don't know if you got info from there or not.
    • No I just used the website version but did click on the "Habitat and Ecology in detail" link for the second time the reference is used and clicked on "population in detail" for the third time. Hughesdarren (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eucalyptus rhodantha grows in flat or slightly hilly country, on sandy or gravelly soils as a part of shrubby heathland communities on yellow sandplains.[1] whereas source (IUCN page) only says "yellow sandplain heath". Perhaps some of that sentence is from other sources, too?
  • Source number 9. This source 9 ("environment") is dated 1995. Add that year to the citation template for it. Is the PDF download the same as the web page? The PDF has the authors' names, which should be cited. I think changing the link for that reference to the PDF (https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/e-rhodantha.pdf) would be prudent. (For example, it has the authors, it is more stable, and when I click on links on the web page, some are broken). Then, go through and find the page numbers and include them in the citations. This is a long source with a lot of information (the PDF is 28 pages).
    • reference details changed and page numbers included (NB:Used the page numbers from the pages on the side bar rather that the latin numerals used for part of the report). Hughesdarren (talk) 13:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources do not have to be in a certain format, but they do have to be in a consistent format when viewed in the article. Fix references 16 (Francis Aubie Sharr (2019). Western Australian Plant Names and their Meanings) and 31 (Jakelin Troy (1 April 2019). "Trees are at the heart of our country – we should learn their Indigenous names").

I looked back at the history of the talk page of this article, and cl-paraphr has been a problem from the beginning. Gonna have to clean that up before it can be GA. Please do a comparison again with sources to make sure it's dealt with.

  • OK, will make a start and let you know when I'm done. Is using Earwig the best/most efficient way to go about this? Hughesdarren (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completed now, reworded a little but Earwig and manually checking it isn't giving any flags. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Wow, time has flown. I haven't looked at this since last year! :) I apologize for the delay in response. I had done earwig, and it didn't flag anything. I'll run it again. I stopped looking manually after those first two, above, and decided to put it back on you to check manually with the rest of it. I'll look at what you've done already and then keep going with my review. Maybe there isn't anything else. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, no worries, I had a couple of days off too. We are finally getting some summer sun here and the beach is always looking like a better option when the sun is shining. Still checking for paraphrasing and doing a few adjustments. Kind of slow going but feel there is some progress. Earwig did give me a bit of help. Still looking, will let you know when I'm done. Hughesdarren (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do these sentences from D&H contradict each other? The second one occurs right after the first, and since I don't know the geography, I can't be sure. If they do contradict each other, it's important to say so.
  1. Eucalyptus rhodantha is native to Western Australia[12] and is found in the Avon Wheatbelt and Geraldton Sandplains bioregions.[4]
  2. The plant is only known from the northern wheatbelt where a few remnant stands remain near Three Springs and Watheroo.[7]:1
– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • No they do not contradict each other, part of each of those bioregions is in the Wheatbelt region (the administrative area) is it worth linking Wheatbelt, do you think? Hughesdarren (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • If Wheatbelt isn't already linked by then, then sure. Otherwise, it was more just me asking the question. Done either way. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the plants collected are from the Watheroo and Three Springs locations... Should this read "All the specimens collected..."? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed that to make it less like the source, I'll reword to "All the specimens of E. rhodantha collected.
  • ...the bulk of the natural flora... Seems like this should read "native flora". – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed for the same reason as above, Changed back. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand, but that loses the meaning. This is a case where it's better to just keep it as the source says. Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just discovered page number problems for PDF source #9: Kelly, A.E.; Coates, D.J. (1995). "Rose Mallee Recovery Plan 1999-2002". It looks like you used the PDF page numbers (at the top) instead of the numbers typed at the bottom of the page. I was looking for something on page 8 as stated in the article and it turned out it's on page 1, which is page 8 of the PDF but page 1 of the document. The page numbers need to be the ones with respect to the document. I hope that just made sense. Did this happen with all the PDFs? If so, go through and fix them before GA is finalized. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I had mentioned that above (for the comment on source 9) "reference details changed and page numbers included (NB:Used the page numbers from the pages on the side bar rather that the latin numerals used for part of the report)". I'll go through and change it again. Completed now (although the report has no page i on the actual report , the third page is iii, there is no other way to label it). Hughesdarren (talk) 09:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cool. Thanks. In the situation where there is an implied page number, I think we put it in brackets, like this: [i], but if we do that, it looks weird since the citations are in brackets, so the "i" is good as you have it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WELL! This article has come a long way! Thank you for your changes and your perseverance. I think we're ready to call it GA! I'll make the final changes to this review. CONGRATULATIONS!! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eucalyptus_rhodantha&oldid=1198270661"