# Talk:Symphyotrichum kentuckiense

Changing from redirect to article because of taxon name change. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 23:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Symphyotrichum kentuckiense/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) 18:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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: 

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: 

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): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

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: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Hello, over the next week, I will be reviewing this article. I'll add my comments here as I go. You can either work on them as I add them, or wait for me to finish. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Reaper Eternal: If you have not reviewed a taxon page, looking at the Plants Project Taxon Template might be useful. The second paragraph suggests the sections for a GA article. The Wikiproject page discusses the taxonbox, taxonbar, categories, and other standard taxon article items. I have also had two good articles, one which is now FA. There are other recent GAs for examples. Symphyotrichum novae-angliae is in GA status. Some of the information in that article is not available for this more localized species Symphyotrichum kentuckiense. Some other GAs are Dracophyllum traversii, Banksia acanthopoda, Banksia oligantha, and Veronica jovellanoides. The S. kentuckiense article uses dmy dates, shortened footnotes, and American English. I look forward to working with you. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
@Reaper Eternal: Hi, it's been almost seven days since you picked this up for GA review and I haven't heard from you at all. Is the review in progress? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I've done an initial read-through and review, and I'm working through getting my thoughts in order to post here. I had a work emergency that ate a lot of my time, plus the holiday I forgot about when I accepted this review. I might be a day or two late. Sorry about that! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply, I was getting a little worried about you. :) I understand and look forward to working with you. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Nice flower! This grows wild only a bit south of where I live in southern Ohio. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm a huge fan of the entire genus. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Lead section
"...in the family Asteraceae..." possibly should have the word order changed slightly to "...in the Asteraceae family...".
Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
"...is generally considered now to be..." should be changed to "...is now generally considered to be..." because the adverb "now" is interrupting the flow between the verb "is" and the predicate nominative phrase "considered to be".
Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Consider dropping these redundant words: "to be the hybrid of the cross between S. kentuckiense and Symphyotrichum pilosum var. pilosum"
Done (2 places). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Prose & content
Section "Leaves": "The Kentucky aster has alternate and simple thin leaves..." What are "alternate" leaves? Alternate leaves are leaves which appear individually (one per node) on one side of the stem then on the other while ascending a stem. This is in contrast to other leaf arrangements like opposite, whorled, or rosettes. However, our reader has no way of knowing this information.
Done. Wikilinked to Alternate leaf. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Section "Leaves": The phrase "vernalization occurs at flowering" makes no sense. That's basically saying that the inducement of flowering occurs at flowering.
I removed it. Need input: I'm not sure what the source is attempting to relay, quote: "basal withering by flowering (vernal rosettes developed at flowering)". The parenthetical expression is past tense. Did basal leaves develop twice? How can they wither before flowering and develop at flowering? Prose now reads Basal (bottom) leaves wither before flowering and are either without leafstalks (called petioles).... – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the "Leaves" section almost requires a dictionary to read, and I'm familiar with most of the terms already. For example: "The basal leaves are oblanceolate to obovate with obtuse apices, and their bases are cuneate (wedge-shaped) to attenuate." One potential solution would be to have a small gallery showing diagrams of each type of leaf morphology mentioned in this paragraph. That could help cut down on word / explanation bloat while not requiring the reader to have a book on leaf morphology open.
In progress. I've had this "gallery" idea before and not used it. I'll see what I can come up with. However, the wording still needs to be cleaned up because the visually impaired can't rely on photos or diagrams, so I'll work on that, too.
Still in progress... – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Need input: I put a small gallery for Apex types in the Leaves section. Turns out I don't like it. Let me know what you think. Alternatively, I can change the wording, add more footnotes with definitions, and include mini images in them (see the two for acuminate and mucronate that I did in the Notes section which will pop up if you hover over the note letter). Those seem friendly. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I changed the "gallery" to small tables and put them near the end of the article. Also have them in Notes. Please let me know what you think of each. I think the "gallery" is out of article scope. The definitions in Notes are probably okay, and I think they work better than tons of parenthetical expressions. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I really like the notes! It gives enough information to the reader without making them click out of the article 20+ times. You can definitely drop the gallery. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! So do I. I think everybody should be doing it! :) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The article seems to arbitrarily change between spelling out units and using various abbreviations and formatting styles. Be consistent. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Need input: MOS Units of measurement: "In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times but symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly after spelling out the first use...." So my usage isn't intended to be arbitrary. I am spelling it out on first use in the Lead and on first use in the Body. Maybe I don't need to spell it out on first use in the Body if I've already spelled it out in the Lead? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I could have sworn that the article at one point was going back and forth between abbreviations and spelled-out units. However, this doesn't appear to be the case anymore, so either I was mistaken or it got rewritten at some point. On the other hand, the article does currently swap randomly between saying "X to Y units" and "X–Y units". For example: "lengths of 5 mm to 6.5 cm (3 in) and widths of 1–4 mm". One style should be used.
Okay, if you say so. :) I'm sure I've read that somewhere. I actually prefer the "of ... to" and "between ... and" to the ndash, so I'll use those. I think it's better for readability. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk)
Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Section "Flowers": "which open as early as August in some locations and as late as October in others." Which locations?
Good point! Removed the "as early as ... in some locations", etc. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
The "Reproduction" section seems to spend most of its time talking about the various flower parts. (I'm aware that flowers contain the reproductive organs of a plant—that's not my concern!) However, I'm not sure what distinguishes this from the section "Flowers". What is the reason for the split in information? Why put some information in each section?
I'll get back with you on this. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Explanation. Okay, so the "Description" section, "includes all the information required to allow identification of a member of this taxon" (from Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template#Description). "Ecology" section "is all about the taxon's interaction with the environment" (from Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template#Ecology). The Ecology section in this article is lifted and modified from what I wrote for the Symphyotrichum lateriflorum article. Its intent is to describe not what you see or but how it works. Ideally, Ecology would include information about pollinators, pests, and diseases for this species, but I can't find a source for any of that, most likely because this plant is a rare endemic, and the scope has not been studied. The first paragraph in Symphyotrichum lateriflorum§Reproduction would be an ideal paragraph if I could find this information for this species, genus, or even tribe Astereae. I may have found a few things that I could squeeze juice out of. That type of paragraph would then lead in to the explanation of how the flower works. OR I could leave the Ecology section with just the discussion of C-values for now, approaching how the flowers work during later article development [which is what I have done]. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Done. Removed section. I removed the reproduction subsection. I didn't have it in the GA Symphyotrichum novae-angliae and don't plan to approach it in that article (in a proper context) unless or until upgrading it for FAN. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The phrase "The disks have, on average, 33–51[u] florets..." is factually inaccurate. A mean is a single number, not a range. Is this, perhaps, the first to third quartile range or +/-1 standard deviation from the mean?
Done. Nope, I added the "on average". Totally my screw-up. I removed it. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Sources
Section "Leaves": The claim that the leaves are alternate is not in the citation given. Same with the simple leaves claim.
Done. I know they are simple but couldn't find a source, so I removed "simple". Found source for alternate and cited. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Images
I'm aware that it's part of the infobox, but what are your thoughts on moving the distribution image into the section "Distribution and habitat" section? Just a thought—it's certainly not mandatory.
Likely would go against project consensus. I have often thought this would be good when working plant articles. I don't want to go against the intended format of the taxonbox. Someone will come along later and move it back, especially if it were to eventually go to FA nomination. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I just looked at a few Banksia species articles (many are of high quality). I see they have the distribution map in the "Distribution" section rather than the Speciesbox, including GAs Banksia acanthopoda and Banksia oligantha, FA Banksia aculeata, and probably many others. I see nothing on the Plants project Taxon template giving a hard and fast rule regarding its placement. I also checked the Banksia project; nothing about the topic there, either. Apparently, it can be put in the Speciesbox, as in the FA Banksia dentata, but apparently can also be put elsewhere. I may move it. I did just notice that although the base map I used is the US ecoregions, I don't discuss those in the Distribution but only in Ecology when discussing C-values. I think in this case, there is value in touching on them in "Distribution and habitat" as well. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Moved. I moved it to D&h. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Done. Added blurb about the ecoregions under D&h because the map covers them, so they needed to be in the prose there and not just in Ecology. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I like this a lot more! I'm not a fan of infoboxes in general. ;)
I'm not sure what File:Symphyotrichum kentuckiense 233619903 (cropped).jpg is trying to convey just by looking at it. The image just isn't very good, with significant portions out of focus and a very washed-out color palette due to the sun. The caption tells me it's trying to show the decumbent growing pattern, but I can't really see that in the image. Is there a better image you can use?
Not sure. Images are limited by availability and license, as well as response from the owner if I request a license change. I'll see if I can find something and if not, just remove this. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I'll get back with you on this. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Done. No good replacement image available. For "decumbent" there isn't really a good image available. Just moving on from this after having removed the unclear image from the article. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
File:Symphyotrichum kentuckiense 233627309 (cropped).jpg could be a picture of anything. It's been destroyed by JPEG artifacts and poor focus.
Done. Removed. Yes, you're right. It's bad. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Please add alt text to the images.
I can't believe I missed this. Will do so and reply here when completed. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Done. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Miscellaneous
When giving ranges of values (for example, height), don't mix units like decimeters and meters.
Changed but request input: Not going to fight it, but is there a reason? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
It's for non-technical readers—switching between units when giving ranges can be confusing. Multiple editors requested similar changes in the FAC for Cirrus cloud, so it's not just me.
Thank you for explaining many technical terms in parenthetical elements. It makes the article easier to understand for non-technical readers, and saves me having to look up the definitions I've forgotten.
You're welcome! Doing it in Notes is something new for this article. Glad it works. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I do worry that the words in parentheses interrupt the flow of the prose, which is why I put some definitions that required more detail in Notes. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
The third paragraph of the section "Leaves" may be a close paraphrase of the source. However, it's also just technically very dense and, as such, might not qualify as creative expression.
I'll get back with you on this. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Done. I believe I have dealt with this now. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I also think that because we are dealing with scientific facts here, it's hard not to clpar "3 to 5 cm" or "withers" etc. Botanical terminology is very particular, but I tried. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Confirmed to be rewritten enough now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Moneytrees, would you mind verifying for me whether this is an issue?

Looking more at it, the fourth paragraph of the section "Leaves" may have the same issue as mentioned above.
I'll get back with you on this. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Done. I believe I have dealt with this also. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Also fixed now. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Some copyright spot checks done; some potential close paraphrasing found. Needs further review. N Copyright spot checks reveal no more issues. Y
There are some major MOS:SANDWICH and layout issues going on with the pictures of the flowers. The flower picture pair is being shoved below the gallery.
Seems to be okay now. Did you fix it? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
No, it's still below the gallery of four flower pictures on my 1440p monitor. On 1080p and 1280p display resolutions, the pair of images moves up a bit, causing a MOS:SANDWICH between it and the various images on the right. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Sigh. Okay. Gah. Let me see what I can do. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The dang taxonbox always gets in the way of the pictures being down the right hand side where they belong. This is really the only thing I don't like about the taxonboxes. I like that it does have everything related to the basic taxonomy in one handy place, and it works well in mobile app. I'm trying them all on the left. See how that looks. I know of one article that has them all on the left and it works really well. Going to see if I can find it and how it does it. Current version is not going to be the final product. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
OF COURSE! They did it with Multiple image going vertically. I'm getting to be a pro at MI. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Please review image locations, etc. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
All images now appear to layout correctly at large and small monitor sizes. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Basic arithmetic ("To convert millimeters to inches, divide the number of millimeters by exactly 25.4") does not need to be explained. You can convert to any units you wish without introducing original research. Currently, this is note L.
Done. Removed it, although I liked it. :) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Section "Flowers": "a glabrous peduncle that ranges from 4 mm to 2 cm (4⁄5 in) in length". I'm 99% confident that using a fraction in this format is unacceptable. Use .8 in or 0.8 in instead. Honestly, I am impressed that you found unicode codes for a superscript 4 and a subscript 5, but this is likely going to break screen readers. Furthermore, this mixes units (mm & cm) in a potentially confusing manner as mentioned above. Try something like 4 to 20 mm (0.2 to 0.8 in) {{convert|4|to|20|mm|in|sigfig=1|abbr=on}}.
Actually, Convert will make the fraction if you do {{Convert|2|cm|in|abbr=on|frac=5}}. I'll make a change. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Input requested... Okay, so I think it's useless to try to convert very tiny measurements (like 2 or 4 millimeters) to inches. There is no value to it to the reader. So that's why I have split out the mm and cm values. If something is 65 mm, then it makes more sense to say 6.5 cm. That will convert to a decent inches value. So it goes against my better judgment to convert small values and to not convert larger values. What should I do? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Done (I think). I changed every measurement but the height of the plant (cm & in) and the elevation (m & ft) to mm and added conversions to all of them. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Review updated. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Awesome. I'll get right on these. "That's basically saying that the inducement of flowering occurs at flowering" made me cackle out loud. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Hah! I did an about take and had to doublecheck my dictionary to verify that I wasn't misremembering the meaning. Anyways, I think this article is quite well written and researched—congratulations! I just need someone to doublecheck the potential close paraphrase issues, and you to fix the issues I've listed above. I'll do another pass through the article soon to make sure I didn't miss anything. Then the article should be good to go. Cheers, and great work! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll do more later. Did you see my questions below about the "The"? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Request input: The "The" question is on the talk page of the article, here. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Now you're making me confused because I've always used the definite article in those cases! I'll try to find some directives on which form (or, possibly, both!) is correct. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I have a feeling both are correct and it just depends on who's doing the writing, but I just don't like "The calico aster", "The Kentucky aster", "The New England aster", etc. I think it sounds bizaar, but I'm sure it's perfectly fine. If you do find out something definite, please let me know! :) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I think I have it! If you are, say, in a plant article but talking about insects that host on it, you would say (from article Apocynum cannabinum) It is also a host plant for the dogbane tiger moth (Cycnia tenera) and the zebra caterpillar (Melanchra picta). In this case, it is using "the" before the vernacular names of the insects.
Here is an example from Bombus fervidus listing common names of plants, which makes perfect sense without the article and would be excessive with it: Species of plants visited include aster, black-eyed Susan, common milkweed, Queen Anne's lace, dandelions, bull thistle, goldenrod, jewelweed, devil's beggartick, Joe-pye weed, climbing bitter-sweet, black willow, yellow poplar, American holly, ragweed, greater bladderwort, blueberry, jimsonweed, honeysuckle, and rose mallow. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 10:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Photo changes: I was looking at the article on my phone and got a surprise when I saw the stem photo close up. It has hairs meaning it's not glabrous meaning it doesn't fit the description for S. kentuckiense meaning it may be mis-IDed on iNat meaning I needed to pull it out of the article, including two more photos from the same observation. I replaced them with photos from one obviously glabrous. Unfortunately, they are not quite as sharp, but I think they'll work. Here they are for your review:
File:Symphyotrichum kentuckiense 233619783 (upper stem).jpg
File:Symphyotrichum kentuckiense 233619813 (bract, involucre, phyllary).jpg
File:Symphyotrichum-kentuckiense-iNaturalist-175471636 (head shot).jpg
– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
File:Symphyotrichum pilosum 161330087 (cropped).jpg and this one
– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Reaper Eternal: Now it's your turn. I shall patiently await.

@Reaper Eternal: Ready for your (possibly final) review – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, will have to be tomorrow. I got stuck with building a massive bill of materials at work. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Reaper Eternal: I've not used an article before a common name, so I thought I'd ask you if there's a reason it should be there. Is it a part of a specific form of English? Is it because the vernacular begins with a proper noun? Or some other reason? I was checking the MOS and didn't see anything specific there or in the plants project. I also perused the Wikipedia articles on a couple of styles of English and on the article The itself. No luck there, either. Your help appreciated because if I've been doing it wrong all my life, I will adjust. Thanks! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)