Talk:Water caltrop

GA review

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:Water caltrop/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Abductive (talk · contribs) 12:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

• This article has some major issues that need to be cleared up before it can be considered for Good Article status. Basically it needs to be split into an article on the genus Trapa and an article the species Trapa natans which the majority of the current article is actually about. The title runs afoul of WP:FLORATITLES. Along with Hawaiian hibiscus, this article is the only one that I am aware of that "squats" on multiple species, which is highly undesirable. Abductive (reasoning) 12:26, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'll see what I can do in that direction. Give me a moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  I can whip up some stubs on the less-important species if you need. They are circular redirects at present. Abductive (reasoning) 13:37, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yes please! Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  OK, I've split out Trapa, it will play no further part in this GAN. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  Great, that had been bugging me for years. Abductive (reasoning) 17:42, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

• On the article title, we must leave it as it is until the GAN has concluded (or the process crashes, been there, done that). We can move it (if that's what's agreed) immediately afterwards. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  Cool, going forward, WikiProject Plants has an ideal article layout which should be followed. Abductive (reasoning) 17:42, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. I note that that page states at its top that it is "only a suggestion" and that "not all plant articles will contain all these sections". The article is already structured to suit the material at hand, and it is not anomalous for taxon articles (in any phylum). I'll see if there are some changes that could be made in the direction of the WP:Plants suggestion, but this is already outwith the GA criteria. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  • SD: present
  • Infobox: present
  • "Introduction": lead present
  • Description: present
  • Taxonomy: present
  • Distribution and habitat: 'Distribution' present, some 'Habitat' material present, will reorganise.
  • Ecology: 'Parasite transmission' present, and material on invasive species. Will reorganise.

  Other sections are indicated as optional; we already have 'Use as food' and 'In culture' (in my view, clearly grouped better than in the template).

  All in all, the structure seems canonical, and I'm surprised that WP:Plants has so many subsections promoted to top-level chapters, making the table of contents rather untidy and hard to approach.

  I'll do a bit of reorganisation now as indicated, towards the suggested structure. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, the subsection vs top-level chapter thing is not as crucial as the basic order. Abductive (reasoning) 18:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, we're pretty much there in that case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

• There are a huge number of synonyms, this has come up before with the potato article. It seems that the issue is one of WP:ACCESSDD and of forcing mobile users to scroll through a very long list. User:Chiswick Chap eventually created Taxonomic synonyms of Solanum tuberosum to deal with it. In this case the synonyms are all sorted by variety, with the autonymous variety alone having 136 synonyms. I would be happy to create the list, but not right this instant. Abductive (reasoning) 18:34, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  The matter comes up for quite a few flowering plants. For the potato, the list was already in the article, unbalancing it severely and making it needlessly long and no doubt awkward to read on a handheld device. Luckily we don't have such an embedded list here, and I don't think we specially need worry about creating one. We have a sensible list of accepted varieties, which should be quite enough for GA, so I think any future list of synonyms can remain as a possible future project. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  The consensus is that all plant articles must have a list of synonyms. GA criteria cannot override consensus. As can be seen in the potato article, there is a "see list" entry in the infobox. It will be a simple matter for me to set this up, just maybe not today. Abductive (reasoning) 18:44, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  Ok. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  I've done this. Abductive (reasoning) 07:54, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

• One thing that I am wondering, and will go a long way towards explaining the habitat, distribution, and invasiveness, is how does this plant get around so much? Abductive (reasoning) 19:06, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  Humans. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

  I've added some explanation. Abductive (reasoning) 07:54, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

• Any thoughts about the choice of images in the infobox? Typically there is a photograph of a representative individual, not a botanical illustration, which is usually image2. And the image of the pile of seeds would be better down with the "Use as food" subsection. Abductive (reasoning) 07:54, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

  Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

• I've removed a serious error regarding the Galerucella nymphaeae beetle. It seems that the "Palm Franzaring 2024" ref does not make the claim that G. nymphaeae is a serious herbivore of T. natans at all. A Google Scholar search showed some interest in it as a biological pest control agent but it looks like this didn't go anywhere. G. nymphaeae is probably not a legit species. Per WP:UNDUE I have removed its pic (which did not, as the caption claimed, show it eating T. natans) and all mention of it. Abductive (reasoning) 12:51, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

  Palm and Franzaring say in terms: "In Europe and North America, Galerucella nymphaeae L. attacks Trapa." It seems to be a very good botanical source. If it's not actually a species then we can say Galucerella sp., I suppose: after all, something in that genus must be doing the damage reported. The principle here must be Wikipedia's general rule, that we report what WP:RS actually say. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:58, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

  BTW, contrary to your assertion, the caption did not say that the individual beetle pictured was in the act of eating T. natans or anything else: it was just a picture of the beetle and captioned as such. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

  If you read a bit further, the source says "they differ regarding their host specificity and damaging effect. Of the two, G. birmanica is a Trapa specialist and is currently being evaluated as a potential biological control agent" Translation: G. nymphaeae eats water lilies and doesn't really damage T. natans when it does nibble on it. Also, as I say above, other scholarly sources don't back up G. nymphaeae as a significant herbivore of Trapa, and it may not be a good species. Abductive (reasoning) 13:15, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

  OK. Probably best that we discuss such matters here rather than in edit comments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

• There are a number of deadlinked sources which need to be recovered or replaced. Abductive (reasoning) 13:18, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

  I've just been through them... which ones are giving you trouble? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:49, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

  Looks good. Abductive (reasoning) 14:06, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

• I have some concerns about undue weight, for example the "Parasite transmission" section is a bit verbose about Fasciolopsiasis and could use a ref that directly says that eating water chestnuts is infecting people with Fasciolopsis buski. But otherwise anything else in the undue weight department can wait for FA candidacy. Abductive (reasoning) 14:06, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

  Trimmed and cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

• I've created a stub for Trapa incisa, which is the only other species in Trapa that is, in my opinion, a legit species. The others are suspicious and will likely be synonymized someday. Abductive (reasoning) 09:16, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

  Noted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

• I have nothing further, do we wait for other comments? Abductive (reasoning) 10:28, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  Many thanks. No, you're the reviewer, it's up to you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:35, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  I'll attempt to follow the instructions. Abductive (reasoning) 10:37, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

  There is a tool that does all the behind-the-scenes work. User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/GANReviewTool is easy to install and it saves a lot of faffing about! Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

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.

"Agaras" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Agaras has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 21 § Agaras until a consensus is reached. Plantdrew (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2025 (UTC)