Talk:Cylindropuntia imbricata

Some information from personal experience. —JerryFriedman 17:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Cylindropuntia imbricata has failed, for the following reason:

At the moment the article is not structured very well, although the content is fine. It looks very cluttered - there's not enough text to justify that many images, and the huge one on the left is definitely too large. You should summarise the article's contents in a couple of paragraphs, then break the text up into, say, three sections - something like 'description' and 'range' to add to cultivation which you already have. Worldtraveller 20:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Renominated

Still looks a little cluttered to me, with too many heavy headers for the length of the article. I'd cut out the first two headers, and just have their paragraphs free-standing, and reduce the cultivation to a ===header=== to remove the underline that splits the page across. I'd also replace the aboutgardenplants.com (too overly commercial) hardiness cite with another non-comm reference (I'll dig one out later). The distribution in Mexico also needs expanding to bring it to state level (as the US distrib already is); the info is at the USDA ARS GRIN page on the species. Also, note that Cylindropuntia is now generally treated as a distinct genus, not a subgenus of Opuntia (so the page will need to be moved). - MPF 09:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! As long as you notice that the previous reviewer thought it was too cluttered because it didn't have enough headers (and because a photo was too big). —JerryFriedman 16:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Naming

The reference I believe Kalmia was referring to was this one which states that Opuntia imbricata is a synonym for Cylindropuntia imbricata. I don't really have the expertise to comment on plant naming issues but there may be some merit in Kalmia's move. Please consider the issue thoughtfully. Cedars 00:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 02:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Cylindropuntia imbricata/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I'm reassessing the article as part of GA sweeps, to double check older GAs to make sure they still meet the criteria. For the most part this article's still good, though I have the following issues:

• Is there really all there is on this plant? It looks like something that would have a decent amount on it.
• All citation needed tags need to be addressed.
• The gallery is a nice touch; if all could have captions though that'd be a plus.
• "(or walking stick cholla, tree cholla, chainlink cactus, etc.)" I'd stick to keeping a few most common names and leaving out the etc.
• Second part of range and habitat should probably be cited.

I'll put this on hold for five days so these issues can be fixed. Since it's a small article there's not too much at least. If fixed this will remain a GA, if not it won't. Wizardman 02:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

There's clearly a lot of progress being made on this article, so it'll remain a GA. Wizardman 19:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cylindropuntia imbricata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061106165150/http://www.aboutgardenplants.com/Opuntia_imbricata.shtml to http://www.aboutgardenplants.com/Opuntia_imbricata.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130413145758/http://weeds.org.au/cgi-bin/weedident.cgi?tpl=plant.tpl&state=&s=&ibra=all&card=S52 to http://www.weeds.org.au/cgi-bin/weedident.cgi?tpl=plant.tpl&state=&s=&ibra=all&card=S52
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110815203802/http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-03252009-31295005979926/ to http://etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-03252009-31295005979926/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)