Talk:Larch

Larch has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink 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: September 25, 2025. (Reviewed version).

Plants Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Forestry Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the profession and science of forestry 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.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Monty Python

How to recognize trees from quite a bit away. No.1 The Larch, THE Larch. And now, no.1, The Larch, THE Larch.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.11.8 (talk) 03:09, June 7, 2006‎

Darn, someone beat me to it! Totnesmartin 17:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

should we have a link to Monty Python or a small part about Monty Python's larch?Casvdschee (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I have no actual authority in what happens, I would enjoy to see this added. The Graceful Hobo (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavia

Larch is not native to Scandinavia, so maybe Scandinavia shouldn't be mentioned in conjunction with Russia and Canada as one of the areas with immense larch forests? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.44.1.80 (talk) 12:13, April 15, 2015‎

About the graph in the "Species and Taxonomy" section

In the graph in the "Species and Taxonomy" section, the "L. cajanderi" species redirects to the "L. gmelinii" wiki page. I searched the species on Google and they are apparently different species (with the L. cajanderi species having the common name "Kajander Larch" and the L. gmelinii having the name "Dahurian Larch") Peter Jinbin (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not different species according to Plants of the World Online – see here; GBIF – see here; or GRIN – see here. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Jinbin, @Peter coxhead . . . which leaves Larix gmelinii seriously paraphyletic in Stull's phylogeny. With multiple other contradictions between Stull's, and other published phylogenies (reference citations 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 in the version of the page as of today), Stull's phylogeny needs to be treated with caution: either it should be removed, or the other phylogenies similarly presented, to make it clear that Stull's is not "The [one and only acceptable] Phylogeny of Larix" as is implied at the moment.

As an aside I've noticed the same problem on several other genus pages with phylogenies cited from Stull's paper. One was removed recently from Cedrus by @Elias Ziade; I think quite properly, as it was frankly weird(!), totally different to both other published results, and expected biogeographical parsimony. The one presented at Picea is grotesque, too. While Stull's work does look reliable (in accord with other studies) for higher ranks (families, orders, etc.); but within genera, its fine tuning is dubious, to say the least. Should this one, and the one at Picea, go, too? - MPF (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Passed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:04, 24 September 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:Larch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 10:20, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Bgsu98 (talk · contribs) 08:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (9/24/25)

Lead

Northern Hemisphere is a proper noun.
- Done.

De-wikilink Canada per MOS:OVERLINK.
- Done.

Etymology

Why is there a * before larihha?
- *words in etymology mean they are conjectured by experts.

Cones

Same is before, recommend providing a wikilink or otherwise explaining the word "bract".
- Already linked and glossed as "leaflike".

Distribution

De-wikilink North America, Europe, China, Japan, Russia, United States, Canada
- Done.

Add "the" before United States.
- Done

I'm legit unsure, but should "north" be capitalized after 75°?
- I believe so, as in that context it's a name.
  - It looks like it should be lower-case per Circles of latitude between the 70th parallel north and the 75th parallel north. I'll fix it for you.

Recommend slight rephrasing: "demanding of the soil"
- Done.

External phylogeny

I don't think there is a hyphen in Douglas fir.
- Fixed.

Diseases

De-wikilink Canada, Europe, North America, and Asia.
- Done.

Uses

De-wikilink "wood" unless you can find a much more specific target. Wood is a very generic term.
- Done.

User:Chiswick Chap: This article is very well written, as you can see by the small number of comments I have. Please let me know when you have a chance to go through these, and I will do the source and image reviews as soon as I can. Let me know if you have any questions! Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (9/24/25)

Images have appropriate licenses and captions. I again strongly suggest you add appropriate alt-text when you have a chance. Some of the images do have alt-text already, but some do not. I added the alt-text to the image in the infobox because many editors forget about that one. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:23, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bgsu98: all done to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (9/24/25)

Random spot check of references checks out.
Formatting of sources is consistent. I personally recommend wikilinking sources (such as newspapers), but that is a personal preference. I also recommend archiving sources, which is beyond the scope of the GA, but is still good practice.

User:Chiswick Chap: This article is very well written! I'm happy to pass this GA. I still encourage you to add alt-text to the images when you have a chance. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.