Talk:Banksia caleyi/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 11:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There's a little bit of inconsistency as to whether you provide metric/imperial conversations
 * am tired, just read through and think they are all there (????) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "can reach 4 cm long 2.5 cm high, and 2.5 cm wide", "up to 4 m have" and "roughly 7 cm in" are the ones I can see. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "obovate" strikes me as jargon
 * yeah, but I can't find away to explain it otherwise...so I linked to wiktionary Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * File:Banksia caleyi MHNT.BOT.2008.11.37.jpg- What am I looking at here?
 * fruiting cone. explained now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "South Stirling to the West River" Links?
 * one linked now...other...will have to look up tomorrow Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't bother listing the publishers of journals, but if you want to, some consistency would be good.
 * hangover from many moons ago. removed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason I've missed that you repeat your Weins et. al citation?
 * mistake. fixed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Your Sweedman and Merrit source should probably have its title capitalised, and you're missing a publishing location
 * tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You may want to think about rejigging the pictures- you trap some text between two pictures at the top of the article, you have lots of space in the middle and the bottom picture runs into the references (on my screen).
 * tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

That's it- that's all I have. The pictures and sources are excellent, the writing is very strong, key questions are answered. I've made some fixes (please double-check, but I don't think they'll be controversial) but I'm happy to promote this immediatly, and leave my comments above as some bits to think on. Great work- I think this is only the second time I've done an "off the bat" promotion. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * changes look fine. thanks for the promotion. Will get stuck into the changes as no surprises where this one is heading.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)