Talk:Penstemon harringtonii/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2025 (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.

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

Nominator: Pbritti (talk · contribs) 04:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 21:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Penstemon (historically spelled Pentstemon) is a reference to the unusual presence of a fifth stamen in the genus. - the parenthesis will seem totally unrelated to the body of the sentence to anyone with no Greek. Since πέντε pente means five, one may guess that pent-stemon means 'having 5 stamens'; without such an explanation, the sentence is basically needlessly obscure. Please clarify it for the average reader.
- I've expanded that slightly with use of the OED and some Wiktionary links. I wanted to utilize Harrington on that particular definition because he inexplicably failed to catalog P. harringtonii in his otherwise comprehensive flora of Colorado (perhaps humility?). It would be a darned shame not to reference the namesake in this article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a very small amount of copy-editing.
- Always much appreciated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Images

All images are on Commons and seem to be correctly licensed. It would be helpful if the Isotype image page on Commons were documented with a link to the CC-by-SA license over at GBIF, for the avoidance of doubt.
- Hopefully doubt may be avoided now. The GBIF linked to the standard CC0 document and Harvard's public domain statement, so I've added the latter. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

All the sources are clearly relevant and of suitable quality for the subject; I wondered about [6] but it's obviously a serious site.
- Glad "blog" didn't dissuade you. I can attest that organizations like that in Colorado's more prestigious areas are generally sound. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-checks: [1], [3], [11] ok.

Summary

This compact article on a rare plant is properly structured, cited, and illustrated. I have few concerns about it but one bit of explanation is needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiswick Chap: I think I've addressed the stated concerns. I've decided that I may end up taking this one over to FAC sometime later this year, so any last comments you'd like to add will be welcomed with open arms. Your volunteering to take on a second GAN for me in a week is greatly appreciated! ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2025 (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.