Talk:Alloxylon flammeum/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is already a well-written and composed article, well, I find only these few comments to make:


 * I think the genus should be mentioned in the lead no matter the family is or not.
 * added Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Could a bit of taxonomic detail be added in the lead? I had a doubt, actually - who then really described this species or made it first known?
 * added Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * By what you say in lead and "Taxonomy", I infer that the species was formally described in 1991 by Weston and Crisp but was named in 1995. Sounds a bit confusing to me. Also, one fact is clearly mentioned in the lead, while another is stated in "Taxonomy". Needs to be uniform, surely. Just one more thing I noticed, that no year is mentioned in the infobox as when the species was named "binomial authority" part). Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 13:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * gah, my bad. Should have been 1991 from the outset. 1995 Flora of Australia was the big official work, but I forgot about its description being in a 1991 paper....fixed now Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The lead seems small. I just had a look at another GA, Cordyline australis (in fact you have reviewed it!). It mentions much description and distribution details. Should be same here as well.
 * working on it. Now expanded a bit. To be fair, this article is much smaller than the cordyline one. Do you think it is big enough now? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering what it comprises of, I think this article has what it needs. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 13:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You say it has been given Vulnerable status by NCA. But neither is it sourced nor is it mentioned anywhere in the article.
 * d'oh! Will find some official government pages.... got some info in now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to link the fact in the infobox. Are EPBC Act and NCA related? Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 13:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One is state, the other national. Will sort out later today. The state predated the national legislation. updated now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the three consecutive images squash up the text, while the latter part has none of them. Could it be balanced?
 * Link "graft" in "Cultivation".
 * linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The author names in the citations need to be consistent in format (compare Crisp, Michael D. with Johnson, L. A. S. with Hodge, Merv).
 * everyone knows Merv as Merv - ditto Mike Crisp and Lawrie Johnston. Will tweak.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant you should write the names in any of these three ways (say, the name Lawrence Alexander Sidney Johnson) - Johnson, Lawrence A. S. ; Johnson, L. A. S. ;  Johnson, Lawrence Alexander Sidney. And this applies to all the names you write.  Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 13:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, as far as possible everyone has a first name and second initial if they have one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That's it. I wait till you respond to my comments. Sainsf &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 13:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks for being quick off the mark, was just about to go to bed...which I will do now. You are welcome to play with the images. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Quick work of yours, really! You have well messed with the images, the thing looks fine now :D. I have stroke through resolved issues. Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 13:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think now the article is ready for becoming a GA. I pass it. Congrats! Sainsf  &lt;^&gt; Talk all words 13:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)