Talk:Orchid/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:47, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Snoteleks (talk · contribs) 23:28, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Chiswick Chap! I am happy to conduct this review. My initial impression is that it looks like a well-planned and accessible article, and I appreciate the generous and aesthetically pleasing use of images. Thank you for your efforts to improve the quality of the more general and fundamental articles like these.

Many thanks. Yes, if I'm doing taxa I want to cover those that ordinary readers know, which generallly means groups.

• Y Both AI and copyvio detectors showed negative.
  • Noted.

Random spotcheck:

• Y Reference 93. This reference directs the reader to the introductory URL of the CITES org referenced in the article, and explains the difference between appendices, but there is no mention of orchids here. I took the liberty to add another reference to the CITEs page that displays the full appendices, where the statement "Almost all orchids are included in Appendix II" becomes clear.
  • Thanks.

•   Reference 3. Correctly backs up the 28,000 orchid species number, but not the genera number (the article states 702 genera, while the reference states 736). The other reference used for this statement, number 4, displays "693 accepted genera", also not 736. Please fix this.
  • Fixed.

• Y Reference 47. Correctly backs up the statement, but I suggest adding the exact age for the reader, not just "of Eocene age", if possible. According to the reference, the fossil age is 40–55 myr. Also, I wonder why the authors of this fossil receive a mention, while the rest of fossils' authors remain unmentioned; consistency would be appreciated here.
  • Fixed.

•   Reference 63. While I'm sure the code itself backs up the simple claim that the name of the cultivar is not in italics, it's very strange that the reference consists of a link to another Wikipedia article. The reader cannot directly check the source material like this. Please update the reference with a link to the source, if possible, as well as authors, date, and the like.
  • Done.

•   Reference 57. It's difficult to say, since I currently cannot find the original work online. This paragraph seems to be stripped right from the lead of Taxonomy of the Orchidaceae, an article in poor shape; the Olof Swartz reference points to an 'external link' at the bottom of the article (there are two external link lists, even more confusing), and the link bearing the same title ("Afhandling om...") is dead. If you could find another URL for this work it would be great, but I think it should suffice with a secondary source that references Swartz's contribution of 25 orchid genera.
  • There is no requirement for sources to be online, and the primary source is sufficient here, but I've added a redundant secondary source for you.

Good article criteria:

1. Well-written Y prose is well written and appropriate for a general audience, follows the expected section structure.
2. Verifiable Y no copyvio, spotcheck was satisfactory after the fixes, all other paragraphs are well cited.
3. Broad in its coverage Y I particularly appreciate the sections on interactions with other organisms, on the fossil record, and on all human-related aspects like culture and usage. I think the broad focus is very much achieved here, and it helps that the anatomical terms are properly explained.
4. Neutral Y
5. Stable Y
6. Illustrated Y amazingly so, it's one of the best aspects of this article. I like how the taxobox image already shows the defining qualities of orchids.
7. Overall - almost perfect, I only have one comment specific to the Evolution section: the Taxonomy subsection could use more work. Right now it only mentions numbers of genera described by a number of authors. I suggest focusing it more on the broader history of orchid classification. Also, because orchids are particularly diverse, there should probably be a mention of this, compared to other flowering plant groups. This all would be more adjusted to the wider audience. Concerning to the Evolution section as a whole, since the APG system is mentioned with relative frequency, a short explanation of what this system is would be appreciated by readers. Lastly, are the species numbers in the first cladogram expected to be different in the second, more recent cladogram? Perhaps it would be better to display the species diversity of each subfamily in a table in the Taxonomy subsection instead? But merely an improvement of the Taxonomy subsection should be enough for GA.
   1. --- I've added a gloss on the APG and provided an account of diversity. I'm conscious that there is a complex "main" article on the topic, and want neither to stray too far into that territory, nor to make this summary too complex given that we have a "main" link for anyone interested in the subtopic.

Space for feedback from nominator here. — Snoteleks (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Snoteleks: all done to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap New changes look good. I have written the rest of the review. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Snoteleks: I think we're complete? Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap Could you address the comment on the cladograms? — Snoteleks (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

You said that a bit more on Taxonomy would be sufficient... But on the cladograms, [53] studied the tree's topology, not the number of species involved, while [54] just quotes a figure for the total number of species much like that of [52]. The number of taxa, both at species and at genus level, is constantly shifting (splitters vs lumpers) so the numbers are inevitably approximate. I'm not sure we can say anything in particular about all that really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap Well, I do think this is enough for a GA. Congratulations! — Snoteleks (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)