Talk:Verbascum thapsus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Verbascum thapsus has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on January 30, 2005.
Article Milestones Date Process Result December 29, 2006 Good article nominee Listed December 30, 2006 Peer review Reviewed March 30, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current Status: Good article

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Are you sure that common names should be in bold with in the body of the text? This plant is a common "weed" naturalized in north America and other parts of the world were it is a pest species in grain and hay fields. You just have to visit a few farms to see that it grows in the fields, were it can interfere with harvesting due to its thick hard stalks. Since its a biennial tilling tends to remove it but in fields that are not tilled heavily it persists to flower. Hardyplants 14:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Merge of Mullien to Common Mullein 2 GA comments 3 GA review 4 Good Article

[edit] Merge of Mullien to Common Mullein

I agree that the Mullien page be merged into Common Mullein. 'Mullien' is just a misspelling of mullein. DavidCooke 04:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually much of it might be better merged with Mullein. Although the text starts with Verbascum thapsus, most of the article seems non-specific to the individual species and later mentions white mullien which would appear to be V. lychnitis. -- Solipsist 10:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the redirect should obviously be to Mullein, but I'm not familiar enough with the entire genre to know what article the information is best merged with. Circeus 16:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Definitely merge the 'Mullien' to Common Mullein. I agree it's an obvious misspelling. As an herbalist whose favorite plant is CM, the Common Mullein article here is excellent. Thank you.Berrymoon 15:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA comments

This article is way over-linked. It makes it difficult to read. Does "decades" really have to have a link? Is every link necessary? KP Botany 18:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to address to address that alongside User:choess comments. Circeus 20:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice article. This sentence in the lead paragraphs is awkward and confusing: "While not an issue for most cultures, it hosts many insects that can be harmful to other plants, such as the tarnished plant bug, and although individuals are easy to destroy by hand, it is difficult to destroy a population permanently." What do you mean by "not an issue for most cultures"? Also, the sentence has too many phrases and would ideally be broken up into two sentences. --NoahElhardt 15:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Split and reworded the sentence.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are working toward FA, so I'll be picky. Some of these I could fix myself, but I'll just explain here so you can make changes as you see fit:

• In the Morphology section: "The second year it produces a tall stem 1–2 m tall...". Try to avoid using "tall" twice in one phrase.
  • done.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• In the Morphology section: I would prefer metric units listed first, then American, but I don't recall if that comes up in the MOS anywhere.
  • The order should ideally stay the same as the original, but it should be consistent. There is agreement that plants found only in a place using a specific should have that system first. Since only one place had imperial first, i switched it around.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• In the Morphology section: "The stem is solid (nearly an inch across) and is sometimes branched". Try replacing the parenthesis with commas or working the material into the sentence.
  • reworded.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• In the Morphology section: "sometimes branched just below the inflorescence,[2] typically doing so when damaged.". Maybe strike the "doing so"?
  • removed.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• In the Morphology section: "yellow and an inch or less wide, and five stamen." Give both American and metric units.
  • Since I just added a measure for "inch" above at the stem, It seemed redundant here.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• In the Morphology section: "capsules containing large numbers of minute (less than a millimeter) brown seeds." Work material in parentheses into sentence and give in both units.
  • Though I'm not too happy with the result... Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Can you give some kind of description of the different subspecies? I assume they differ in more than just distribution. They may warrant their own section.
  • User:MPF located the list. I haven't been able to add anything to it.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• In the Distribution and naturalization section: "The species has a wide native range...". Animals have a range, plants have a distribution. I think.
  • "Range" and "Distribution" appear to be mostly synonymous: [1], [2], [3]. Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• In the Distribution and naturalization section: "and is naturalised in North America" NaturaliZed
  • done.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• In the Distribution and naturalization section: "By the 1630s, it was already escaped". Change to "it HAD already escaped", but I'm also not really comfortable with using the word "escaped" on plants. I completely understand what you are trying to say, but people with less botanical understand might not. Maybe make it clear somehow that the plant didn't uproot itself and hop the fence to freedom.
  • *giggles* Replaced with "already fond in the wild." Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• In Ecological aspects: "Common Mullein is most frequently met as a colonizer of bare and disturbed soil." Awkward. Change to something like "Commen Mullein most frequently grows as a colonizer..."
  • done.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• In Ecological aspects: "It is not an agricultural weed, although its presence can be very difficult to completely eradicate, and is especially problematic in overgrazed pastures." If it is difficult to eradicate, why isn't it an agricultural weed? Why would it be especially problematic in overgrazed pastures? Explain, considering the average reader doesn't have much of an agricultural background.
  • That paragraph is intended to summarize the "Agricultural impacts and control" subsection, whose first paragraph goes into greater details about this very element.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• In Ecological aspects: "in nature, it will only appear if the seeds are exposed". Change "appear" to sprout, germinate, grow, etc.
  • Ouch. Used "do so," referring to "germinate" in the previous phrase.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• In Ecological aspects: "although the American Goldfinch was reported to consume them." Change to "has been reported to"
  • done.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• In Ecological aspects: "and Victoria, Australia (regionally prohibited in the West Gippsland region, and regionally controlled in several others)." Maybe change to "Australia, where it is regionally...." to work out parentheses?
  • Not sure about this. I wanted to place the specific levels in parenthesis. Moving "West Gippsland" outside the parenthesis leaves a problem with "several others." Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• In Ecological aspects: Maybe move this last paragraph on weeds to the preceding section on Distribution and naturalization?
  • By now, said paragraph (one sentence) has been added to the first paragraph of "Ecological aspects" instead. It id not seem to meld well in the previous section. Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• In Life cycle: "Common Mullein requires vernalization before it can flowers, which is the reason why it is a biennial." Cut "the reason".
  • done.Circeus 17:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's all I have time for at the moment, but I hope to finish reading and commenting through. If you'd rather I just make the edits rather than bring them up here, lmk. --NoahElhardt 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

1. Well written:
   1. Compelling prose: In the third paragraph of "Morphology", try to rewrite so that two sentences in succession do not start with "The flowers are". The first sentence of "Cultivation and naturalisation" should read "a naturalised weed in North America...". In "Agricultural impacts and control", the phrase "A study found V. thapsus to host" would probably read better without the infinitive: "A study found that V. thapsus hosts". Just below, the meaning of "specific feeders" is unclear: specific to the species? The genus? In the first paragraph of "Medical use", "that as transmitted" should read "that was transmitted". In the second paragraph, "external conditions" would, IMO, read better than "external problems". "was recommended against" should perhaps read "was recommended for treating". "found Mullein...to contain" would, as aforementioned, read better without the infinitive. On the other hand, "as containing" should read "to contain". Below, "common" is misspelled, and "transferred on" should be "transferred to". In "Other uses", "as being able" should just read "to". In the second paragraph, "with warmth keeping" should be rephrased "keep them warm" or simply "insulate them".
      • Should be all taken care of. Fixed a few extra wording and grammar issues along the line.
   2. Logical structure: Perhaps "Life Cycle" should be a first-level, rather than a second-level heading? Also, the bit about "Gordolobo" is a bit problematic. Gnaphalium conoideum and Senecio longilobus are both similar in leaf appearance, but V. thapsus doesn't really resemble them. According to the source cited, they seem to have been confused, somewhat inexplicably, by an early Spanish botanist. This should be rewritten to more accurately conform to the events described in the source.
      • I've restored my original structure, where "life cycle" and "agricultural impacts" were under "ecological aspects". The new one (by User:MPF) had a few other things I wasn't happy with (such as sections with a single subheaders. Gordolobo bit rewritten.
   3. MoS: Please use en-dashes instead of hyphens when expressing a range of numbers.
      • done
   4. Jargon explained: yes, but as the previous comment observed, the article is somewhat over-linked. Common nouns such as "leaf", "flower", "autumn", "insect", etc. should probably not be linked; linking should be restricted to proper nouns and more technical terms, such as "biennial", "rosette", and "taproot". Also, words should only be linked once: the first link to "weed" is probably OK, but the term should not thereafter be linked.
      • tried to remove as many as I could.
2. Accurate and verifiable:
   1. Referenced: Excellently so.
   2. Inline citations: in profusion
   3. Reliable sources: all sources appear to be reliable
   4. NOR: None apparent.
3. Broad in coverage:
   1. Addresses all major aspects: as far as I can tell. Covers morphology, reproduction and ecology, impact on agriculture, and human uses.
   2. Focused on main topic: Yes.
4. NPOV: not really an issue with Mullein, happily.
5. Stable: appears so.
6. Images:
   1. Tagged and captioned: the picture in the taxobox should be captioned.
      • Done
   2. Non-free or fair use rationale: OK.

Please address these issues and I would be happy to examine it again and probably approve it for GA. Choess 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

*Checks "address GA comments" on to-do list.*

Oh, however, all these "done" refers not to the article, but to the version at User:Circeus/Verbascum, which is still being worked on to include extra material I've discovered in the meantime. Circeus 21:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems Choess has been absent for the past week or so. I see you still haven't copied over your rewrite. Do you have any idea how much more time you'll need to work on it? I don't want to fail it while you're working to address complaints, especially since your initial reviewer hasn't been around for further feedback, but it's already a week past the time the hold period should have expired.

I don't see any major issues with the rewrite, but:

• There's still some overlinking -- goats, chickens, sand, gravel? Common terms shouldn't be linked unless they're of particular relevance. (For instance, "seed" is directly relevant when talking about a plant.)
• Web references should all have a "retrieved on" date and follow a consistent format. The DOI at the end of the section appears out of place, too.

Very minor, and should require very little time. If you're not finished expanding it, however, and you plan to be a while, it might be better to remove it and renominate it once the work is complete. Shimeru 05:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The DOI is for an article I still need to integrate the content of in the article, I have been kept from working on this by various things, and will try to do it (and the overlinking thing) ASAP. I'm a terribly slow worker on my articles, I'm afraid.Circeus 06:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the quick response. I'll leave it on hold, with a note. Shimeru 06:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article

Excellent work. I feel this meets all of the Good Article criteria, and I'm happy to promote it. Congratulations, and thanks for all your hard work. Shimeru 19:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)