Talk:Adenanthos obovatus/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * "The plant was collected and described" I appreciate it's not the first collection, but perhaps you could specify in the lead why this is significant?
 * ditched Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Could the lead perhaps be expanded a little?
 * rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "taxonomy" would go before description in my eyes, but I don't know if there's actually a guideline on that somewhere?
 * This is one of those cases where there are converging layouts. Pushing for taxonomy to go above description was mainly my idea (generally so that the description section (which is often where one wants to put photos) is then down below where the taxobox ends), and I did it in lots of bird, plant and fungus articles. Hesperian initiated most of the proteaceae articles (banksia and now adenanthos) and I have followed his lead in these. We've got some action across all bio articles in streamlining articles but has been challenging as there are so many...there are no strict guidelines as such.) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "sessile" Link?
 * done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "perianth" Link?
 * done Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "obovata" So this is a synonym? Perhaps note it in the taxobox?
 * Good question. Ultimately I don't think it is, and that it is merely a case of altering the gender of the species name (like a latin adjective) to align with the presumptive gender of the genus. It is not listed as such elsewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs)


 * "who he" whom? I may be wrong.
 * either is acceptable, but I do like whom too... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * sterile is a dablink
 * this is tricky - the first definition on hte target page is fleshed out, followed by some other links. I need to read more to see which it might pertain to, as many of the target pages seem a bit narrow. The whole set of pages there might be in need of an overhaul. I am tempted to delink for the time being as "sterile" is a common enough word until we have a proper target to link to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I created a new stub on sterility (physiology), defined as the inability to effect sexual reproduction in an organism or organ otherwise anatomically equipped to do so. I'm shocked we didn't already have a page on this. As Cas says, the whole set of pages there is in need of an overhaul. Hesperian 12:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "published Adenanthos intermedia" Is that a recognised use of the word "published"? I read that as "published a work called...", rather than "described a species called..."
 * described better, so changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "A. intermedius" is another synonym that could go in the taxobox?
 * no, it was the name given to what is now recognised as a hybrid, so strictly speaking does not refer to this species as such. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think mention of the common names belongs in the lead- a lot of people will know it first and formost from common names (I assume).
 * I placed the two commonest names in lead Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "abuts" is not a word I've heard before. The OED does have abut, but it lists the main meaning as obsolete.
 * ''okay - changed to " brushes against" Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "The Silvereye (Zosterops lateralis) also drinks" repetition of "also"
 * removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Too heavy for the fine branches, their bills are too large for the tubes as well." Implies that it is the bills which are too heavy
 * clarifiedCasliber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Propagation is by cuttings of the current season's growth, from which it strikes readily[6] and makes fairly quick growth." I get what you're saying, but does that make sense?
 * ''yes, but adding an "afterwards" or something would help clarify. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "It prefers a sunny aspect" Repetition of "prefers"
 * changed one prefer Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There are slightly too short paragraphs throughout the article, but they're worst in the cultivation section. Any chance of them being merged?
 * merged the 3 short ones there. There is a lot less info on these than banksias. I will see if I can embellish or flesh out any other bits. Casliber (talk ·' contribs) 22:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Cites 1 and 5 refer to the same person in different ways, and perhaps both should link to our article on him, as cite 11 does?
 * done Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the work you've done in response to this review- the article's looking that little bit tidier now. I'm passing it- well done! J Milburn (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)