Talk:Adenanthos cuneatus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) 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:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) 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:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Comments

• Well, let's start this review... Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Illustration-wise, this article seems to be pretty well off. I made a few grammatical corrections in some of the image captions, and I'm concerned that the captions "Infloresence" and "Coral Drift" might be too short, but I'll worry more about that later, when I've had a chance to look into the context of the article with more detail. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

There is precious little published info on the cultivar, which makes it hard to write about. (sigh) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Fortunately, I've found no evidence in the article's history of a recent ongoing edit war/dispute, so it quickly checks against that. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• It looks like it covers every topic you'd expect a plant species article to cover, and I don't think it goes into too much detail on anything. I'd almost say this could go on for FA, actually. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks - that was our intention. We pretty well scoured every possible place we'd be likely to find info. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• In terms of citing sources, this article appears good. It looks as though only reliable sources have been cited, and the "Footnotes" and "References" sections appear to be appropriately laid out. (I might also add that the "External links" section is also very well laid out!!!) Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

PS: Just reformatted this for clarity (hope you don't mind), and I think a level 4 heading makes sure this bit transcludes on the talk page proper (otherwise it disappears) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

PPS: the linking and copyediting are all good :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well, with a few tweaks and grammatical corrections, the article has checked against everything! Congratulations! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(in best Elvis voice) why thankyou very much... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)