Talk:Metrosideros bartlettii

Metrosideros bartlettii has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 25, 2024. (Reviewed version).

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in New Zealand English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse, centre, fiord) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

DOC article in their blog

This article provides an update on DOC conservation efforts

GA Review

Passed. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 00:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Metrosideros bartlettii/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 12:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Cloventt (talk · contribs) 23:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

Lede: I recommend rewriting the first line of the lede, to be more similar to the first line of Description. eg, Metrosideros bartlettii (Bartlett's rātā) is a rare tree endemic to the Northland Region of the North Island of New Zealand. The current introductory sentence does not mention the basic fact that this is a tree, and is therefore not as accessible as it could be.

Done by Generalissima

Lede: that contain Bartlett's rātā, Radar Bush, this should be a colon to separate the prose from the list of places.

Done

Lede: I prefer "becoming extinct" over "going extinct".

Done

Lede: unless immediate conservation measures are taken due to its ongoing decline I think you want a comma after "taken".

Done

Description: *Flowering occurs from October to November, it produces: please fix this comma splice.

I think this is done.

Taxonomy: the first sentence needs to be adjusted. I recommend It was first discovered in 1975 by New Zealander John Bartlett, a schoolteacher and botanist from Hamilton. He discovered the tree in Radar Bush, 9.5 km (5.9 mi) south-east from Cape Reinga.

Done

Taxonomy: as per MoS please refer to him as "Bartlett" rather than "John". We do not know him personally and therefore we use surnames on Wikipedia. This is particularly confusing because there are two Johns mentioned in the same paragraph.

Done

Taxonomy: Bartlett's rātā is closely related to northern rātā, its leaves are of similar size: this comma should be a semicolon.

Done

Etymology: translates to English to as 'iron heart'.

Done by G

Ecology: Wind and rain may be in charge of self-pollination but the [...]: the wind and rain are not sentient and therefore cannot "be in charge". I would suggest Wind and rain may cause self-pollination.

Done

Ecology: (nit) used in other augment wild populations should this be "augmented"?

Done

Ecology: (nit) Recent and historical ~~genetical~~ genetic research

Done by G

Distribution: patches of forest remnants near Piwhane / Spirits Bay. These being, Kohuronaki Bush, Radar Bush, and Unuwhao Bush. these sentences should be joined by a semicolon.

Done

Distribution: An article from Molecular Ecology published in 2000 you need a comma after Molecular Ecology.

Done

Distribution: surveys conducted in the 1990s ~~revealed~~ revealing individuals were

Done by G

Distribution: and it remained to have stayed there awkward repetition here

Done

Conservation: "assesed" should be "assessed"

Done

Conservation: Bartlett's rātā historical decline I think that should have a possessive on 'rātā', or reword to The decline of Bartlett's rātā [...].

Reworded

Conservation: I prefer "becoming extinct" over "going extinct".

Done

It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
I like your layout of the references section.

Very impressed with the low score on Earwig, only about 9%. However, I did find some close paraphrasing when checking Nadarajan 2020:
flowering of the Barlett's rātā is erratic, which reduces the chances of natural regeneration from seed. similar to flowering of M. bartlettii is erratic, lessening opportunities for natural regeneration from seed from the source. This could be rewritten to something like The flowering pattern of the plant is unpredictable, making it unlikely the small wild population can regenerate without human assistance. or something similar.

The average germination of the seeds taken from Bartlett's rātā controlled pollination was generally low, which is consistent with ﬁndings in other Myrtaceae species [...] is similar to Although the average germination of seed obtained from the controlled pollination of M. bartlettii was generally low which is consistent with findings in other Myrtaceae species such as [...] from the source. This could be easily rewritten such as Hand pollination of Bartlett's rātā is generally unsuccessful in creating viable seeds, consistent with other species [...]

Generally, I recommend sweeping through your sources to find and fix any other close paraphrasing. My advice is that acceptable paraphrasing is not simply replacing specific words or sentence structures; rather, you need to parse and understand the source material and then articulate your own understanding of it.

Source spot check:
8: Y but the source also mentions that he collected a branch by shooting it with a gun! Almost worthy of a DYK but not mentioned in the article

14: Y as mentioned above, lots of close paraphrasing from here in multiple places but it is only cited inline once. It would be best to go through and add more inline citation to this source in all the places you collected information from it.

17: Y

Might also pay to go through and see if you can add more inline citations from the sources you have. There are a few sentences without an inline citation that could possibly have one added.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Initial comment: This article is generally very good, but I am concerned to see some close paraphrasing of the sources. Once the prose has been cleaned up and you've checked for any further copyvio issues I will have no issue promoting this to GA. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 23:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for starting this review. I've completed about half of fixing the text. I should be done by the end of today. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cloventt. I've double checked thru the text tonight and I've added an additional reference. I think this PDF is what Nadarajan 2020 was referring to (or maybe there's another copy that I'm not aware of) but I think the ref should be good. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I've done a quick c/e myself to fix up some minor errors remaining and add some templates. Great work! David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 00:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.