# Talk:Cultivated plant taxonomy

From the section "Scientific and anthropocentric classification": "The kind of classification schemes we use is determined by the purpose for which it was created. From the time of the ancient world, at least, we have classified plants according to two streams of thinking."
The first sentence is unhelpful and adds no useful information to the article. Rather than informing readers of the generic purpose of classification schemes, it would be better to inform readers how the specific scheme correlates with its purpose. [This is already done later in the section.] From the the manual of style, the use of "we" should be avoided. The section could easily be written without this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence is critical as it makes the point that classification schemes are devised to achieve specific "ends" or purposes. There is a common belief that classification schemes are in some way "given" or inevitable. Rather than giving readers many examples of this it is best to first alert readers to this simple but all-important general principle. I have adjusted the sentence to remove the "we".Granitethighs 09:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cultivated plant taxonomy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jack (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I just chose to have a quick look through a random section to check for any obvious mistakes to get the ball rolling. It has been a while since this was nominated!
The heading was 400 BCE to 1400 - the ancient world: Greco-Roman influence to the Middle Ages

 DoneThere is a mixture of date formats. I can see AD and BCE being used; just use one. Other sections often don't show any format.
 DoneCitations should come after punctuation, not before. i.e. The cat was fat.[1] NOT The cat was fat [1].
 DoneA citation should not have a space before it, even in the middle of a sentence.
 DoneEn dashes should be used between two dates, not hyphens.
 DoneThe sentence who established the important idea of a fundamentum divisionis the principle that groups can be progressively divided. needs punctuation.
 DoneIn his Enquiry into plants Is this a book? If so, italicise it. If not, the capital letter should be changed.
 DoneThe following sentence desperately needs breaking up and possibly clarification: The utilitarian approach, dealing with plants mainly for their medicinal properties, is exemplified by the Roman nobleman, scientist and historian, Pliny the Elder (29-79 CE) author of Naturalis historiae [10], Pliny’s Natural History (which lists “cultivars” named after people, places and features of the cultivar), and Dioscorides (ca.40 - ca.90 CE) whose five volume Materia Medica [11] was a forerunner of all modern pharmacopeias being one of the most influential herbals published between about 1470 and1670 CE: it listed 600 to 1000 different kinds of plants including Alba, Gallica, Centifolia and other roses grown by the Romans
 Done A copy-edit is needed. e.g. most influential herbals published between about 1470 and1670 CE
 Done A poem written in AD 827 cited in [3] refers to a monastery garden of St Gallen in Switzerland  The poem title should be mentioned, not just a reference link.
 DoneWikilink the list starting sage, rue, southernwood,
After reading just this one section it seems likely that a lot of work would be needed to push the article to GA status. But if you follow some of the comments made about citations for the rest of the article it should get a good amount out the way so we can focus on content. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I shall gradually tick these items off - a little at a time. Thanks for doing this review Jack. Granitethighs 08:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll try and finish this off this weekend.Granitethighs 12:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Much more work needed - it'll take some time.Granitethighs 00:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
OK - still a little tweaking but I hope it looks and reads better now.Granitethighs 08:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Full review by: Jack (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay this time I will be looking through the article a bit more thoroughly. Anything that I think will be noted here, though not everything will necessarily need action.


### Prose/MoS/content
#### Lead
 DoneThe lead should adequately summarise the rest of the article. I understand it is already a good length but really some of the third paragraph should be trimmed in order to allow a fourth paragraph on the history.
 DoneThere should not be anything in the lead not mentioned in the rest of the article.
 Done Botanical gardens Fix redirect.
 Done Herbaria Fix redirect.
 Done dried specimens, images etc. etc. should be expanded or eliminated.
 Done The literature about the Botanical Code and Cultivated Plant Code always uses caitals - I suppose because it is an abbreviation of "Code of ...." two plant nomenclatural Codes. I think you have been consistent with capitalisation of code but is it really necessary? Do other publications capitalise the word?


#### Distinctive characteristics of cultivated plant taxonomy
 Done I would prefer to keep them at the top as they are the distinguishing classification categories for cultivated plant taxonomy. I have corrected the disambs. Do you want me to unlink the ones in the text? Group and Grex further information links both lead to disambiguation pages. In fact these further information links may be better just linked in the text as they are not particularly specific to this section.
 Done Taxonomy needs a wikilink.
 Doneaccording to where the plants are growing that is Punctuation between growing and that is. Possibly a semi-colon.
 Done Wikilink to Cultivated Plant Code. Despite being linked in the lead.
 Done If there are direct quotes, e.g. "... plants whose origin or selection is primarily due to the intentional actions of mankind" they need to be referenced immediately afterwards.
 Done Wikilink to Botanical Code. As above.
 Done Make sure the reader understands the difference between cultigen and cultivar.
 Done The Preamble is a specific section of the Cultivated Plant Code that is generally discussed with a capital letter - I am happy to change this if convinced that it is inappropriate but at present I think the capitalisation needs to stay. This feature is also referred to in the Preamble to the Preamble does not need capitalisation.


#### Scientific and anthropocentric classification
 Done nested hierarchy Fix redirect.
 Done Group and grex Does group need capitalisation? Yes - always written with a capital letter.  Both links lead to disambiguation pages.
 Done utilitarian or anthropocentric Both need wikilinks.


#### Historical development of cultivated plant taxonomy
 Doneplant nomenclature Fix redirect.
 Done binominal Needs to link to Binomial nomenclature.


#### 10,000 to 400 BCE - plant domestication
 Done William T. Stearn does not need wikilinking again.
 Done cultivated plants [cultigens] are mankind’s most vital and precious heritage from remote antiquity Consistency: an earlier quote used double quotation marks. Pick one or the other.
 DoneFertile Crescent; landraces; cuttings Wikilink.
 DoneHowever, fFood plant selections Qualifiers should be avoided at the start of sentences.
 DoneMigrating people would take their plant seeds and cuttings with them and there is some evidence of early Fertile Crescent cereal cultigens being transferred from Western Asia to surrounding lands. Replace and with a comma, remove some.


#### 400 BCE to 1400 - the ancient world: Greco-Roman influence to the Middle Ages
 Done BCE Wikilink first use.
 Done Hippo You can guess where this link goes to.
 Done opinion that cultivated plants (cultigens) We should have worked out by now that cultivated plants are known as cultigens. No need to explain again.
 Done This has been fundamental to biological classification ever since and fits well with the recent idea of evolution as descent with modification. Also, not a recent idea.
 Done nested hierarchy Again fix redirect.
 Done known as the"Father of Botany" Spacing. Who knows him as the Father of Botany, and why capitals?
 Done described some 480 kinds of Remove some, redundant word.
 Done flowering and non-flowering, deciduous or evergreen Possibly wikilink flowering and non-flowering, deciduous and evergreen should be wikilinked.
 Done Naturalis historiae should wikilink Natural History (Pliny).
 Done Dioscorides Should not be italicised, should be wikilinked.
 Done pharmacopeia Fix redirect.
 Done Alba, Gallica, Centifolia Are cultigens normally capitalised? Alba is a redirect.
 Done The first record of a named cultigen[27] occurs in De Agri Cultura[28] [27] should probably be at the end of the sentence. De Agri Cultura should be wikilinked.
 Done  Change Marcus Cato to Cato the Elder, his more common name.
 Done Book of Hours wikilink book of hours?
 Done Walahfrid Strabo Fix redirect.
 Done St Gallen → St. Gallen My understanding is that full stops are only used where a word is abbreviated to something that isn't the last letter of the word - so Doctor is abbreviated to Dr,  street is abbreviated to St and Saint, also to St. Would you accept that?
 Done sage, rue, southernwood, wormwood, horehound, fennel, German iris, lovage, salad, chervil, Madonna lily, opium poppy, clary, mint, betony, agrimony, catmint, radish, gallica rose, bottle gourd and melon. Check the wikilinks are going to the right place.
Will continue later...' Jack (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


#### 1400 to 1700 Renaissance, imperial expansion, herbals
 Done [[Wikilink Renaissance.
 Done Caspar Bauhin is a redirect.
 Done Pinax theatre botanici [33] Spacing before reference.
 Done utilitarian folk taxonomy - by their medicinal uses Should be seperated by an unspaced em dash or a spaced en dash, not a hyphen.
 Done In 1700 French botanist J.P. de Tournefort (inspired by John Ray), Wikilink all of J. P. de Tournefort, the text in brackets is awkward and should be reworded.
 Done Wikify first mention of Linnaeus, maybe even use his full name.
 Done As the number of recorded plants increased, so this system became more unwieldy as a means of communication about different plants.


#### 1750-1800 Linnaeus and binomial nomenclature
 Done Section title should use to not a hyphen.
 Done Don't sandwich text between two images.
 Done Further information on Linnaeus needs redirect fix.
 Done Wikilink all of Linnaeus' works (even if it means red links).
 Done Think the dates of the works might be a bit off. See Carl Linnaeus bibliography for dates. Systema naturae was in fact his first published piece.
 Done I've given all the titles the same form Systema Naturae → Systema naturae


#### 1800-1900 global plant trade
 Done Remove hyphen from title, use to instead.
 Done He produced a voluminous publication on garden plants, The Gardeners Dictionary, the 1st edition in 1731 and the last and 8th edition in 1768 in which he finally adopted Linnaean binomials[43]. Sentence needs rewording, it is a bit awkward. Make sure the full stop is before the reference.
 Done For a while this was taken as the starting point for “horticultural” nomenclature equivalent to Linnaeus’ Species Plantarum which is taken as the starting point for botanical nomenclature in general. Needs punctuation.
 Done was based primarily on Europe. in Europe?
 Done Although economic herbs and spices had a long history in trade, Wikilink long history in trade to Spice trade.
 Done Lists are not generally used within prose, though if there is no other way to present this it should be fine.
 Done Date ranges should use an en dash, not a hyphen.
 Done Wikilink herbaceous to Herbaceous plant


#### Botanical Code and cultigen nomenclature
 DoneToo many words in italics that don't need it. For example, the names of organisations (Royal Horticultural Society), and possibly of meetings (International Botanical Congress).
 Done Karl Koch leads to a disambig. page.
 Done Alphonse de Candolle Fix redirect.
 DoneWikilink International Botanical Congress; International Association for Plant Taxonomy; legumes; infraspecific; 
 Done nineteenth century - a plethora of names unspaced em dash or a spaced en dash needed, not hyphen.
 Donesubmission from the Royal Horticultural Society London the Probably should be just Royal Horticultural Society and wikilinked.
 DoneHowever, with the intercession Avoid starting with qualifications.
 DoneHorticulture Nomenclature Committee
 Doneadded as an Appendix to the 1935 Capitalisation?
 Done1923[51], the word Reference after punctuation.
 Donecirculation with the new Code of 1953 (see the article Cultivar). Cultivar and cultigen should be linked not mentioned like this.
 Done designations for cultigens[52][53] Needs full stop.


#### International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants
 Done eight subsequent editions - in 1958 unspaced em dash or a spaced en dash not hyphen.
 Done Wikilink International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants.
 Done 2009 (Wageningen)[54], Reference after punctuation.
 Done Would prefer caps as suggested before. initial set of Principles followed by Rules and Recommendations that are subdivided into Articles Capitalisation?


#### International Association for Cultivated Plant Taxonomy
 DoneOver the last 15 or so years there Language too informal.
 DoneHorticultural Taxonomy Group (Hortax )[nb 1] Spacing after Hortax.
 DoneRoyal Horticultural Society No need for italics.
 DoneWikilink Malus domestica?


#### Contemporary issues in cultivated plant taxonomy
 DoneWikilink trade designations to Cultivar#Trade designations and "selling names"
 DonePlant breeders' rights should be linked somewhere.
 Done I'd rather not - is that alright? families etc. Expand to etcetera?
 DoneHowever, choosing classification Avoid starting with qualifications.
 Doneclonal material; grafting Fix disambiguation.
 Donewitches brooms Needs wikilink.


#### See also
 DoneMost of these are covered in the article and often linked multiple times. Therefore, not necessarily needed in this section.


#### References
Ref 24, 25, 28, 33, 40, 41 and 42 should not be in the references as they were not used as a reference. Maybe they could be linked in a Further reading section.
 DoneDate format: 2010-08-05 not 2010-8-5.


#### Bibliography
 DoneStearn, William T Fix redirect and only first instance should be wikilinked.


### Images
With the exception of the first, images should not have a size parameter. All portrait images should have upright.
 DoneImages need succinct captions. Expand some of the shorter ones.
 DoneFile:Botany.jpg right → upright; remove center markup; possibly describe what is in the picture (if so finish with a full stop).
 Done'File:William Thomas Stearn.jpg William Thomas Stearn (1911–2001) Author of wrote the first Cultivated Plant Code in 1953
 Done'File:ClaySumerianSickle.jpg Sumerian harvester's sickle made from baked clay from c.3000 BCE
File:Aristoteles Louvre.jpg Left-aligned images should not be placed at the start of subsections.
 DoneFile:Bauhin Gaspard 1550-1624.jpg Use en dash in date range, not hyphen.
File:Carl von Linné.jpg Carl von Linné (1707–1778) Left-aligned images should not be placed at the start of subsections.
 DoneFile:Liberty Hyde Bailey 1858-1954.jpg en dash not hyphen for date range.
 DoneFile:Wisley Gardens laboratory 8 6 7-90.jpg Needs a better description, e.g. Wisley is one of the Royal Horticultural Societies flagship gardens.

The article looks a lot better than when I first reviewed it. Looks like you have caught many of the problems I noted before. After these changes I reckon the article will probably be passed. Jack (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all this work Jack - I shall steadily tick items off the list — I'll let you know when I'm through. Granitethighs 07:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now ticked off most of your comments which have been extremely useful - but I need some feedback on a couple of matters please.

With Ref 24, 25, 28, 33, 40, 41 and 42 should not be in the references as they were not used as a reference. Maybe they could be linked in a Further reading section. I must be missing something obvious but why are they not being used as references?
The references have moved since I reviewed the article. I was referring to 30. Pliny's Naturalis historiae Retrieved: 2010-08-05, 31. Dioscorides' Materia Medica Retrieved: 2010-08-05 etc. Because you are not explicitly referencing the texts, just indicating their existence, they may better fit a different section, i.e. Further reading. Again they don't need to be moved but they do have some format issues still.  Jack (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not see anything in WP:images indicating that images should not have a size parameter or that they should not be put on the lhs, or that all portrait images should have "upright". What does "upright" do and where do I find these recommendations?
It is recommended that the image size parameter is avoided so user preference is allowed. Though this is not a strict rule. There is mention of it here, see also WP:MOS#Images. The upright clause is talked about here. Jack (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks. Granitethighs 08:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now done almost all of what you have asked. I have read about the images but am still a little uncertain as to what is acceptable or not. I have just tried to fit in the images as pleasingly-to-the-eye as possible. I am happy for you to do whatever is necessary to observe WP procedure - or to give me an example that I can follow. On the references, again I've tried to improve the formatting, otherwise I'm not sure what to do and am happy for you to put them right or give me an example to follow. Is there anything else now?Granitethighs 20:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
All looks good to me. Passed. Jack (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cultivated plant taxonomy. 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://archive.is/20120711040237/http://huntbot.andrew.cmu.edu/HIBD/Exhibitions/OrderFromChaos/OFC-Pages/02Linnaeus/system.shtml to http://huntbot.andrew.cmu.edu/HIBD/Exhibitions/OrderFromChaos/OFC-Pages/02Linnaeus/system.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927205640/http://www.hortax.org.uk/uploads/4/1/3/5/4135326/hortax_plantnames.pdf to http://www.hortax.org.uk/uploads/4/1/3/5/4135326/hortax_plantnames.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) 16:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)