# Talk:Marsileaceae

The link to Polymorphism in this article goes to a disambiguation page, but it should point at a real article. However, I can't see which is appropriate (possibly because I don't know enough about the field, but possibly because there's no article about this type of dimorphism). Can someone who knows better than me do this? Hairy Dude 14:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It should point to frond dimorphism; link fixed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to fail this article, but it does not meet GA Criteria 3: Broad coverage.  This article is part of WP:Wikiproject Plants, yet does not use the project template.  This template contains numerous section topics not addressed by the article, hence the failure of broad coverage of the subject.
Please don't be discouraged!  The article, thus far, is well written.  Just a little more work can get it to GA status.  I also recommend a peer review prior to GA.  Members of the plant wikiproject can help.  Good luck and have a wiki day! Mmoyer 03:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment: As a reviewer of dozens of GA noms, I would like to add that broadness in coverage is in no way the biggest issue with this article. The single most important issue is that it has zero inline citations to the reference material. A key part of proper attribution is that facts are ascribed to particular references through the use of proper citations. Thank you, VanTucky Talk 03:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Although some comments can be made about irrelevant formatting (random bolded). The non use of headers is not exactly the best comment to make (although at least a throwaway bit about whether there are economically important species would be a good idea), because the "project template" is intended for plant Species, and of course, are only listed for cases where the information is relevant. There is no point whatsoever in having a "cultivation" section if the plant is not actually cultivated. Similarly, the vast majority of plant species are never put to any actual use. Circeus 17:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Although the template is intended for species, this article does have problems with sectioning, IMHO. For example, the first paragraph in Natural history should go under Ecology. This is a very good article, but information could be organised better. I believe we should strive to reach some consistency amongst articles. As far as I know, Marsileaceae are not cultivated, so a section about that would be irrelevant. Providing citations as footnotes using <ref> would be better than a plain text in parentheses. Personally I love 'random bolded' (see Orchidaceae), it helps the reader to focus on the subject and the new terms introduced; is it against an official policy? Aelwyn 09:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting): "Use italics, not boldface, for emphasis. Use boldface in the remainder of the article only for a few special uses [thich are then listed]". However, "emphasis" in general should only be used only sparingly. Why? Because emphasizing every 5 words considerably dilutes the effectiveness of emphasizing at all! To me, Orchidaceae is full of bits that scream "pick me, pick me!" like annoying schoolchildren. Doesn't look anything near something that "helps the reader to focus on the subject" to me. Circeus 23:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, but that style page is not up-to-date.  For one thing, it doesn't mention that the article name is in bold where it first appears, and does not note the practice of listing in bold those words which are used for redirects to the page. --EncycloPetey 01:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it does. The very first line of the "Bold" section goes: "In the first paragraph of an article, put the article name and any synonyms (including acronyms) in boldface." The specific details as to the bolding of the title and related phrases are at Wikipedia:Lead section. Circeus 13:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You're probably right, and I see it wasn't even used consistently on Orchidaceae (LOL, I speak like if it wasn't me). It should be fixed. Aelwyn 15:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
There are other cases where bold is warranted to: "mini entries" such as the lists of cultivars in some articles (Banksia ericifolia#Cultivars), or the bold generated by definition list format (e.g. Timeline of Australian television), but those are not "bold" formatting per se (not the same markup.). Circeus 18:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
And bold formatting in table headers.  As I noted, the style page is not fully up-to-date. --EncycloPetey 22:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The bold formatting in table header is created by table header cells styling, it doesn't actually need to be manually added. Circeus 22:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
??? The style guide does not allow for the use of bold in that location.  However it is coded, the style guide does not make an allowance for the use of bold in table headers. --EncycloPetey 22:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Re the cultivation / uses request - the Marsilea page details a bit about uses (food in Australia, and as an aquarium plant). Whether this is worth duplicating on the family page I consider doubtful; this page should really only list usages common to all three genera. - MPF 23:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle.  However, in this case, where Marsilea makes up the bulk of the family, I think it would be appropriate to note such a use on the family page. That is, as long as the use is explicitly mentioned as applying to Marsilea and not the other two genera. --EncycloPetey 23:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Seems reasonable - MPF 23:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


### Review
This article is very well written, the prose is excellent, and it is very informative. I think it is very close to meeting the Good Article criteria. However, I cannot pass it at this time because it lacks verifiability – there are zero sources (either inline or harvard cites) in the 'morphology' and 'life cycle' sections, which are substantial parts of the article. I see a listing of sources in the 'references' section, which look like somewhat general references, but also appear to be used by the harvard references in the article. "General" references citing the "article as a whole" are not acceptable – information should be directly cited throughout the article, so as to make it clear where the information came from. This vagueness in reference citations must be cleared up before GA status can be granted.
I don't really have a problem with the use of harvard references in the article, as use of this particular format would allow the article to meet the GA verifiability requirements. However, I think if you take a look at other articles on wikipedia, you'll find that most seem to prefer the use of footnotes and inline citations, and not harvard references. I think more wikipedians are more familiar with adding inline citations and not harvard references, so I would strongly recommend converting the article to the more predominantly-used citation format.
Other than the general lack of citations, I think the article meets all of the other criteria for GA status, and can be promoted once this issue is addressed. I will place this on hold at WP:GAN for one week while this is addressed. Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As before, these are not general references.  They simply haven't had the in-line end of the citation inserted yet.  Yes, I know about the "other" format.  If you look at all my more recent articles, that's the format I now consistently use.  I will try to attend to the citations today, but if they're not done today, I may not have time again until next weekend to take care of them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Done reformatting citations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Article looks good now. GA passed. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Marsileaceae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080226232147/http://www.pryerlab.net/publication/fichier749.pdf to http://www.pryerlab.net/publication/fichier749.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)