Talk:Kew Herbarium

Kew Herbarium has been listed as one of the Natural sciences 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: November 8, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fungi Low‑importance

	Fungi portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi 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.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Museums Low‑importance

	museums portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Museums, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of museums 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.MuseumsWikipedia:WikiProject MuseumsTemplate:WikiProject MuseumsMuseums articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Latest comment: 14 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Passed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2024 (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:Kew Herbarium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 17:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Comments

Heading 'Modern research applications' - could drop the 'Modern'.

suspected novel specimens - presumably this means "specimens suspected to be of novel species".

William Arthur Bromfield is overlinked.

Not convinced we need to link to carbon dioxide immediately after carbon dioxide levels.

Images

The images are all from Commons, taken by all the best people (ahem), and correctly licensed.

You might like to illustrate Psathyrella vs (e.g.) Lacrymaria. Not part of the GA criteria.

The upright images should be so formatted.

Sources

Article is fully cited to reliable sources. Surprisingly only 3 of these are primary.

Might be wise to repeat [24] for the water lily image caption.

All the spotchecks I tried came up fine.

Summary

There's very little wrong with this as a GA but it may be worth attending to the few items listed above. I hope you'll take the time to review one of my biology or agriculture articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks much for reviewing; I thought it might interest you, considering the excellent illustrative images! I've implemented most of your suggestions (along with some other tweaks) in these edits. Esculenta (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2024 (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.

Add topic