Talk:Quercus crispula/GA1: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content deleted Content added


 

Line 36: Line 36:

**replaced the poorer one with the botanical illustration, added a Q. mongolica for shape, may or may not be var crispula, is this ok?

**replaced the poorer one with the botanical illustration, added a Q. mongolica for shape, may or may not be var crispula, is this ok?

::: Sounds risky, suggest we do without it really.

::: Sounds risky, suggest we do without it really.

::::cut

* If there is a botanical illustration of ”Q. crispula” available, we should put that in too.

* If there is a botanical illustration of ”Q. crispula” available, we should put that in too.

**added

**added


Latest revision as of 15:55, 30 October 2025


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

Nominator: MisawaSakura (talk · contribs) 18:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • “a pattern of masting”. Like many other oaks. Perhaps that should be stated and cited, as it is not a specific feature of this tree.
  • “lots of twists” -> “many twists”.
  • “incense used in temples” -> “temple incense”.
  • “The link between the aroma of mizunara is often referred to as “temple smell”.” The link between the aroma and what? Something’s missing or the sentence needs rewriting.
  • “as it is generally referred to in the whiskey business” – but mizunara is the usual name?
  • You might like to have 2 sections within ‘Uses’, for ‘Whisky barrels’ and ‘Other uses’.
  • Suggest we use the spelling “whisky” throughout (since it’s used in “Scotch whisky“), rather than alternating with “whiskey”.
  • “outstanding anti-toxoplasma properties against the parasite Toxoplasma gondii,” seems a bit repetitive. Perhaps “outstanding effectiveness against the parasite…”.
  • A tiny comment: we have 2 images called “Leaves” side by side; and we are missing one on the overall shape of the tree (“Habit”).
    • replaced the poorer one with the botanical illustration, added a Q. mongolica for shape, may or may not be var crispula, is this ok?
Sounds risky, suggest we do without it really.

cut
  • If there is a botanical illustration of Q. crispula available, we should put that in too.
  • All the images are relevant to the subject.
  • All the images are on Commons and plausibly licensed.
  • The moth image is of rather poor quality but just about usable. We should look out for (or get someone to take) something better.
    • only one I found of a pest that attacks this species
  • The sources are all appropriate to the article and reliable.
  • [2] (gives error 502, this is likely a temporary software glitch (I heard on the radio about Microsoft services down today) so not to worry.)
  • [14] ok (I have the book on my shelf).

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.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top