Talk:Durio graveolens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


You could use this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that dictionary does not contain any of the terms used in the article. --Nessie (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note for future: the lead is completely separate from the body. When mentioning a person for the first time in the body of the article, you have to use their full name and wikilink them (so even though you first mention Beccari in the lead, you have to use his full name in the body on his first mention)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Do you have to use "coriaceous" or could you just use "leathery"? The same goes for glabrous when you could say smooth (also glabrous redirects to hair so it made me think glabrous meant hairy) or vernicose when you could say shiny   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • The jargon has specific meaning. Only mammals have hair, so saying a plant is not hairy is not very scientific. The link was piped to Glabrousness#In botany, but the article moved and no one checked "what links here". I updated the link in the article to Glossary of botanical terms#glabrous. Coriaceous means leathery in texture, and not in say smell or any other way something can be leathery. I added a parenthetical there. The physical description is in the weeds of the article, and to differentiate a species from related ones you have to get technical. I think the audience for that section is going to be different than for the rest of the article. --Nessie (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Could be good to say the petiole is the stalk that attaches the leaf to the stem   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Added a parenthetical.--Nessie (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • It might be better to use laymen words then put the technical term in parentheses, like "The leaf stipules drop early (caducous)". Also there's really no reason to use the word caducous here since it's more like a vocab word than a technical term   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • 'Caducous' does have a specific meaning different from other biological disciplines. --Nessie (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
It’s really only used in the context of leaves and petals   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Right, plants do not have caducous tails that are reabsorbed in development, they have caducous leaves that fall early. I don't think the term applies in plants to parts being reabsorbed. --Nessie (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Just because there's a specific word for leaves falling early doesn't mean you have to use it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:20, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • You use a lot of unnecessarily big words. "Tumescent" is not a technical botanical term, for example, it's just a big word   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Why is that bad? If the definition is linked, and the text also explains it, I do not think readers will be lost. --Nessie (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
whenever possible, don’t add unnecessary confusion by showing off your impressive vocabulary   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
That's a little accusatory. The terms used are all from the sources, and not added by me. In this case, it's what Odoardo Beccari wrote. I assume that if a term is used in the original formal species description it was not added just to show off impressive vocabulary. --Nessie (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes it is, actually. We aim to summarize, and that means we do not have to recite verbatim. If you can use a simpler word, use a simpler word. If you feel it's very necessary (which is oftentimes the case, as with petiole and colporate) you give the technical term, but as far as I'm aware, "tumescent" is not a technical word, it's an SAT word. The same goes for globose   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Those words only exist to confuse people   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
That seems a bit of an extreme exaggeration. The synonyms listed on Wiktionary are all less common than tumescent, except for 'turgid', which sounds lewd and means 'swollen with fluid' and not 'becoming swollen with fluid' like tumescent does. What word do you think is better? --Nessie (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • What's the anther?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Wikilinked.--Nessie (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Oval is a common enough word that you don't have to link, but why would you say "globose" when you could say "spherical"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Because globose is only nearly spherical, similar to how our globe is an oblate spheroid. It shares etymology with 'globular'. Both ovoid and globose are kind of spherical, but different degrees. In any event, I retargeted the links and added a parenthetical.--Nessie (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Or you could say “nearly spherical” instead of complicating everything with wiki links   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • You wikilink capitate to stigma (botany) right before you wikilink stigma again   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:32, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Would a reader who wanted more information on stigmas know to click on "capitate" or vice-versa? Should I create a stub for capitate?--Nessie (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
You didn’t even explain what capitate mean. A link to stigma doesn’t help the reader understand   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
It was not a link to Stigma (botany), it ws a link to Stigma (botany)#Shape, where it explains the term in reference to the shape of the stigma in the first sentence. I have retargeted to Glossary of botanical terms#capitate--Nessie (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
What are the grains?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Grains of pollen. In many species the pollen grains cluster, but in this species they do not. --Nessie (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
You should say that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I did . --Nessie (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
No you didn't, you only said "The pollen grains are monad, and do not cluster"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand. Do you want it to say something like "The pollen grains, which are individual grains of pollen, are monad, and do not cluster"? I'm not sure what is confusing here. --Nessie (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Say "In many species the pollen grains cluster"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • You really should put the technical term in parentheses rather than the explanation of the technical term. Normally I wouldn’t see it as a problem but my brain is getting thrown around by all the parentheses, but that's just me and you don't have to do it. I will say though if you wikilink a botanical term you should still give a brief explanation of what it is in parentheses (like with glabrous and cymes)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think I could succinctly define a cyme without a picture, and I think adding a diagram would confuse the article. I added an explanation for glabrous. --Nessie (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "D. graveolens is in the core clade Palatadurio of the genus Durio" I don't know if you said this right, do you mean Palatadurio is a subgenus?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The clade Palatadurio has not been given a rank, according to the information in the source. It may end up being a subgenus, section, or series. --Nessie (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "It has three colporate (combined pore and colpus/furrow) apertures and is monad (has solitary grains)" I think you need to give more explanation as to what these terms mean. It's okay to give a sentence or two explaining botanical terms   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I broke the sentence up for clarity. --Nessie (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand the source uses the phrase "lipstick red" but without a picture, it's hard to tell what shade of red is lipstick red, so you could say "a bright lipstick red"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it is bright, in the copyrighted images I have seen it does not seem very radiant in tone. Plus, wouldn't that be uncited opinion? --Nessie (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
it’s not OR to describe a picture. Quoting a source as saying it’s “lipstick red” does not help in describing it because it’s not an actual shade of red   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it does describe the picture. As the Lipstick article states, there was only one shade for decades. If you do an image search you see the same color. --Nessie (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
All teas are tisanes, but not all tisanes are teas. I added an explanation of sayur. --Nessie (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Anything you say in the lead should be repeated in the body of the article, I'm looking specifically at "The yellow-fleshed kind is sometimes called durian simpor"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Moved out of lede. --Nessie (talk) 15:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't like how overly complicated you've made this article, but I can't fail you for it so I guess I'll just pass it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Impossible "Southern Thai"[edit]

"ริะกกะ" is not a possible morphological combination of Thai script. This is a misspelling which appears nowhere outside of Wikipedia, and I have pretty much no idea what it's supposed to be in Thai. Awkwafaba, could you please check this? --Paul_012 (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I did a bit more digging and it appears the Thai common names of these durian species are a confused mess. D. graveolens is listed in the Horticultural Science Society of Thailand's website as ทุเรียนแดง (RTGSthurian daeng, 'red durian'), but on the Forest Herbarium website of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, as well as this book also by the Forest Herbarium, it's listed as ทุเรียนรากเขา (thurian rak khao 'mountain-root durian'), which is close but a different word from ทุเรียนรากขา (thurian rak kha 'legged-root durian'), which is probably what the cited sources were trying to say, and which appears in a different section of the Forest Herbarium website, which is cited by the Thai Wikipedia. On the other hand, however, this horticultural study digitised by the Kasetsart University's Kamphaeng Saen Campus library has D. graveolens as ทุเรียนขั้วติด (thurian khua tit, 'attached-stem durian'), and instead attributes the name thurian rak kha to D. kutejensis. So does this master's thesis from Prince of Songkla University and this article from Bansomdejchaopraya Rajabhat University's Advance Science Journal, as well as this article from the Thai Agricultural Research Journal. I've removed the obviously incorrect "ริะกกะ" from the article. But should the (Southern) Thai common name be retained in the article at all, given the contradicting information in the sources? --Paul_012 (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@Paul 012: thank you for diving into this. Common names are usually problematic to some ° or another. I don’t speak Thai so I didn’t notice the typo. I think the article should say roughly what you said. The species has those names in Thai, but some refer to other species as well. Those sources all seem reliable, and readers searching for a common name may be thinking of either species, or not know that the term is ambiguous. I find it’s best to show the contradictions to the readers, as some editors consider deciding one over the other as original research. --awkwafaba (📥) 16:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

"ทุเรียน-ริะกกะ" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


A discussion is taking place to address the redirect ทุเรียน-ริะกกะ. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#ทุเรียน-ริะกกะ until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Paul_012 (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)