Talk:Asplenium bradleyi/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sasata (talk · contribs) 05:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Here some suggestions for linking/prose tweaks from a quick read-through. I'll do a lit search and check sources on my next pass through. Sasata (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

possibly useful lead links: sandstone, acidic soil

Description
unlinked or unexplained terminology: fronds, acroscopic, rhizome, wing, spore, basiscopic, confluent
"However, some of these characteristics are variable; specimens are known with rounded, rather than toothed edges[3] and others that lack dark coloration throughout most of the stem." this is not a proper sentence, perhaps remove "that"
"1 millimetre (0.039 in)" the sig figs going into the conversion should generally equal that coming out (check article throughout for this); also, this unit should be changed to Am. English spelling to be consistent with the rest of the article
"narrowly triangular scales which are dark reddish" which->that
"long (occasionally to 13 centimeters (5.1 in))" avoid nested parentheses if possible
"… covered with opaque indusia with untoothed edges, ranging from white to light tan in color[6] with a membraneous texture." unclear to me – is it the indusia or their untoothed edges that are white to light tan and membranous?
"holds sixty-four spores" -> 64, per WP:MOSNUM
link Illinois; who discovered/reported the dwarf form from there? Is it still recognized as a unique form, and if so what is its name?
any chance of locating images of the parents for a visual comparison of leaf structure?

Taxonomy
link cytological
"independently-formed" compound word with -ly, used adjectivally, don't need hyphens per WP:HYPHEN
"collected at an early date" ? any idea of what year this was?

Ecology and conservation
"subacid to medicaid" jargony (is the second spelled correctly?); are there specific pH ranges that can accompany these technical terms?
link invasive, threatened
I think it's good form to avoid starting paragraphs, and especially sections, with an abbreviation. All four paragraphs of this section start out this way, so consider mixing it up a bit.
shouldn't Asplenium in the "See also" and "External links" be italicized?

Responses

I think the first pass has been addressed, with the following caveats:

I've linked acroscopic and basiscopic to wiktionary; let me know if you'd prefer a further gloss.
Weber and Mohlenbrock didn't bestow a formal name on the dwarf form.
I have some good pictures of A. montanum on hand I can upload to Commons, but I seem to be a little short on A. platyneuron. I see it pretty frequently when I'm out in the field, though, so I should be able to bring back some shots and knock together a comparative gallery soon. (Wherry did publish a comparison of frond shapes, but it's just a little too new for PD.)

That would be great if you could put something like that together for this article. Sasata (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what year A. bradleyi × platyneuron was collected, except that it was before the Holtwood Dam was built in 1910. Wherry twice mentions having seen an herbarium sheet so labeled with four specimens from "McCalls Ferry" at the Philadelphia Herbarium. Unfortunately, PH doesn't seem to have included this in their type collection. I have to get down there for work sometime this winter, so I'll try to look it up if I have a chance.
While rifling through their type collection online, it looks as though Schweinitz may have known of the species from a collection by Sprengel from Pilot Mountain and named it Asplenium pilotae, but this name does not appear to have been validly published. That's quite conjectural though and will take some primary-source research to follow-up. Not appropriate for the article at this time. Choess (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied with the changes made in response to my comments above; consider them stricken.

I did a search of various databases (BioOne, Web of Knowledge, JSTOR, ScienceDirect, and Springerlink), and think you've covered all of the important literature. There's a lot of mentions of the species in old field reports in JSTOR, but I don't think they'd add anything of use to the article.
I did flag these as possibly worthy of further investigation:

JSTOR 2476157 (not sure why, I guess I just enjoyed reading it!), JSTOR 1544325 (a slightly more recent source discussing erroneous reports of the fern growing on limestone),
JSTOR 1544137 has a sketch of the species that is probably old enough to be public domain, but perhaps it doesn't add much to the pics you've already got.

If you're thinking of FA for the future, I think a range map would be a good addition.
a final nitpick – you might want to remove either the doi or the JSTOR links for those article there they both lead to the same page.
Based on my lit search and spot checking of several sources; I believe GA criteria 1, 2, and 3 are met. Further, the images are appropriately licensed and have good captions; the article is both neutral and stable. I'm happy to promote the article now. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful! Thank you. I was in the field yesterday and got some good Asplenium platyneuron photos, so I've added a gallery comparing the three fronds. I've added the A. viride controversy: in short, Middleton was quite wrong, although it makes interesting reading. I'm still wrapping my head around the notion of Kirby Smith weighing in on spleenworts as opposed to military campaigns. Incidentally, that first station reported at 2476157 (at the mouth of Tucquan Glen) is the same one from which the pictures came, or very close. I don't think Pretz's sketch from 1544137 adds that much, but I am trying to relocate the station he reports there. 1544325 is amusing: Wherry started out as a mineralogist and was the first to suggest pH as a factor influential in plant distribution, so it's not surprising that this mistake got on his nerves. I'll see what I can do about the range map; I will probably send this up to FA at some point. Choess (talk) 03:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]