Talk:Ficus aurea

To-Do

OK, I am comparing this with some other plant FAs to see what needs to be done, easiest for me (hehe) are Banksia ericifolia and Banksia spinulosa which are the last two Banksias to roll off the production line of Wikiprject Banksia, as well as Ailanthus altissima...

• lead needs expanding

• Figs are important sources of food for many critters, so finding some papers which list a few species of birds, bats, other mammals, insects etc. would be great (also beef up the Ecology section)

• Figs are groovy bonsai plants, if anyone bonsai's this species would be cool to have a pic or note anyways. also, I suppose like other figs it is a really stupid idea to plant one anywhere within like 10 m of a house due to the highly aggressive root system.. (?)

Postscript

• I'll alert the other plant FA folk who may have some more comments. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think that a review at GAN would be good now, as any issues highlighted should be able to be fixed promptly. It will also give someone new the chance to give it a really thorough, systematic once-over and some pointers for FAC. FAC isn't too far off either. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ficus maxima

Actually Ficus maxima has been recognised as a valid name for a different species. Miller described a species based on Sloane's illustration, which had unpaired figs. Fawc. & Rendle connected the illustration with Grisebach's F. suffocans, making F. suffocans the junior synonym. DeWolf followed Fawc. & Rendle, and everyone since has followed DeWolf. So F. maxima is in use for a different species.

Berg decided that applying the rules of priority would be very confusing, because that would make this species F. maxima, a name that is widely used for a totally different species. So rather than confuse the whole world, he proposed that the name F. maxima be conserved for that species. And his proposal was accepted. Guettarda (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, blow me down.... :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Nice article. I'm not going to review it because of the obvious COI, but I've run the DOI bot and made some minor edits. Comments

1. Fig size needs conversion to imperial
2. Should Americana (the section) be italicised?
3. Title of Linnaeus book - even after following the link I'm unsure of the correct capitalisation and whether it should be in italics.
4. wasps emerge - from eggs or fig? I assume former, but best to clarify
5. Refs 2,5,7, 11, and 22 at least need italics, usually for Ficus
6. Flowering phenology in F. aurea Is this a table heading - if so format it as part of the table.

Good luck jimfbleak (talk) 05:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think italicised and capitalised seems the main way it's written, e.g. [1] Guettarda (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of June 30, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass. Some jargon did need explaining but this has now been done.

2. Factually accurate?: Pass, very well references

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Million_Moments (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Final ideas before FAC etc.

• but that section Americana is strongly supported. - I'd reword this for laypeople, i.e. the section makes a natural group, or the molecular work confirms it is a discrete (not discreet) grouping, or something. have a play with it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• Stubbing as many redlinks as possible is simple and easy and may save scrambling later. I may try and do a few. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• he considered them to possess distinct ecological distributions - occupy distinct ecological niches?

• try to minimise switching between singular and plural, esp. with bits on wasps and flowers. i.e. make all singular.

otherwise looks pretty good. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"...the species that was then known as F. suffocans Griseb. (a member of the subgenus Pharmacosycea)." To someone unfamiliar with botanical writing, that sentence is hard to parse, especially the "Griseb." part. Kaldari (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-written. Hope it's more clear. Guettarda (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Fix Ref

Somebody should fix ref number 43 (ref name=IFAS)201.81.198.104 (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)