Talk:Ascarina lucida

Ascarina lucida 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: October 27, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Plants Low‑importance

	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.

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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ascarina lucida. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213134120/http://www.globaltwitcher.com/artspec_information.asp?thingid=95431 to http://www.globaltwitcher.com/artspec_information.asp?thingid=95431

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Passed. Jon (talk) 03:17, 27 October 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.

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

Nominator: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 11:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Jonathanischoice (talk · contribs) 03:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexeyevitch: Hi, I'll review this over the weekend, or possibly tomorrow if the weather goes to hell...! Cheers, Jon (talk) 03:18, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jon. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:39, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	No issues found
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Unlikely, Copyvios report: 10.7%
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See comments
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	See comments
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Comments

First of all, well done, this is an exemplary, well written and comprehensive species article, especially the references style and layout which is already at Feature Article level. Just a few minor suggestions, noted below, and a few mechanical checks (copyvio, ref spot-checks) left to do on my part.

3a: I think it's worth adding the observation in Dawson & Lucas (2019) in their entry for A. lucida that the leaves can be difficult to distinguish in the field from (juvenile) pukatea (Laurelia novae-zelandiae), describing the differences on page 150.^[1] Hutu has two groups of usually three bristles between leaf-stalk pairs on a stem, and the pukatea stem has a square cross-section. (image of relevant bit of page 150)
- Done.
1a: In paragraph 2 of §Taxonomy: The Ascarina genus likely diverged thirty-one million years ago — we can use "31" instead of words, use/link/gloss the Ma unit, and for context it's probably worth saying that it was the early Oligocene.
- Done, but I don't know how to use the Ma unit, should it be Mya?
  - It's ka, Ma and Ga for thousand, million, billion years, but actually this isn't required, just a suggestion.
In the §Distribution paragraph: A. lucida was common in the Holocene, but is now uncommon. A technical point, but the Holocene is the current epoch (I'm pretty sure Anthropocene isn't official), so "now" is also the Holocene, so we probably want to say "early Holocene" or even "since about 5000 years ago" per McGlone & Moar (1977). Also, it leaves the question hanging as to why; McGlone & Moar suggest that the vulnerability to frost and drought clashed with changes (particularly in variability) of NZ's post-glacial climate, which also affected contemporaneous changes in Nothofagus beech forest distribution (see Discussion).
- Done.
6b: Perhaps an image of the fruit, that the waxeyes love so much, e.g. File:Ascarina lucida lucida 38835895.jpg (see thumb).
- Done.

References

^ Dawson & Lucas 2019, p. 150.

Bibliography

Dawson, JW; Lucas, R (2019). New Zealand's Native Trees (2nd ed.). Nelson: Potton & Burton. ISBN 978-0-947503-98-7. OCLC 1126327869. OL 59801669M. Wikidata Q135564433.

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.

[FOOTNOTEDawsonLucas2019150-1] Dawson & Lucas 2019, p. 150.

[1]