Talk:Saxifragales

Saxifragales 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: January 10, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Defining

What actually defines the Saxifragales, what unique characteristics do they have? 95jb14 (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the article now says is: "Saxifragales, as it is now understood, is based upon the results of molecular phylogenetic studies of DNA sequences. It is not part of any of the classification systems based on plant morphology. The group is much in need of comparative anatomical study". I didn't find anything to the contrary in a (relatively quick) look at papers such as the APGII paper. There is a short discussion on page 518 of [1] and although they have a few hints of similarities in morphology, biochemistry, etc, it is probably too tentative for us (unless something more conclusive has been found since, which is possible since this paper is 12 years old). Kingdon (talk) 01:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Starsandwhales (talk · contribs) 02:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! I'll be reviewing this article, and offer some feedback towards the end.

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): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

The lead uses a lot of jargon, that I think would be clearer by using the term in parenthesis and then linking to the technical term. Readers may be unfamiliar with terms such as morphology or phylogeny.
- ex. The degree of morphological diversity makes it difficult to define synapomorphy (common features) for the order.
- ex. The Saxifragales are most closely related to the large eudicot group known as the rosids, following the circumscription (definition of membership) of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification system.

The use of technical terms in botanical articles is always a tricky balancing act. I have rewritten the lead, avoiding technical terms as much as possible, given that they are defined in the main part of the article. Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 16:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lot better now! starsandwhales (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few sections where the article could go more in depth.
- The description is good, but can be more detailed. Explaining the different parts of the plant can help clarify why all of these very different seeming plants are all related.

- - ex. Go into more depth where sentences like "This degree of diversity makes defining synapomorphy (derived common characteristics) for the group difficult, but partially fused bicarpellate gynoecia (two carpels, unfused at least toward the apex), a hypanthium, and glandular leaf teeth are potential synapomorphies." are concerned. For example, explain what a hypanthium is and how that suggests a shared lineage.

But that is the crux of the problem with this order and why they are so interesting. They simply have no synapomorphies and are only united genetically due to rapid early diversification, so I have added an internal link to Biogeography and evolution. That is why the early phylogenetic studies were such a bombshell to taxonomists, requiring drastic revision - hence the quote "one of the major surprises of molecular phylogenetic analyses of the angiosperms". I am not totally sure what you are expecting here, there is a reason why the literature is so sparse in this regard, but I have provided a partial rewrite. Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 18:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess I should clarify. I meant briefly explaining what each part of the plant is (ex. hypanthium, carpels) and then going into why that shows that they're similar. The weird thing about this taxon is that the plants are very different, right? So explaining more of why they're the same would help. starsandwhales (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be extremely difficult, because it has defeated every expert. The only "why" is the ancestral state, which I now refer to and discuss further under evolution. There simply are no features shared by all taxa. I have expanded it slightly, and added a few more references and another illustration. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 19:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok, I understand now. Like you did in the lead, I think it would be helpful if you restated this idea simply in either the "Description" or "Phylogeny" sections. starsandwhales (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I have understood you correctly. I have added a phrase to Description to emphasise that the order is defined by ancestral molecular affinity rather than morphology. --Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 19:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Anything else you can say about uses? What parts of the plant are used for what? Where do people use it?

Not really. The Uses section is purposely sparse because it is a summary of the more detailed account given under Families (link added), and the specific cultivation aspects are spelled out in the next section (Cultivation). Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 18:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article as a whole is very well written, but there are a few grammar issues.
- "The commonest habitats are forests and cliffs, with about 300 species each, but forests being the most diverse phenotypically, with nearly all families represented." --> The most common...

Rewritten Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 18:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It'll take me a while to look through all these sources.

They're all reliable and good. starsandwhales (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The blurbs for each family are very informative!
I'm confused on the statuses of a few images: Saxifraga flower, Tetracarpea, and Blackcurrants aren't clear on the license of the image? I might have to double check on this.

As far as I could tell those are all CC. Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 18:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image captions are good.

Overall the article is very interesting! I think it has potential to expand and be more helpful to the average reader. starsandwhales (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think it is unique to have an order promoted to GA, so there is not a lot to model it on. Let me take a look at the points you have raised to date, and respond here. Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 16:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good! starsandwhales (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]