Talk:Banksia cuneata/GA1

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

Overall, the article is quote good. Here is how it stacks up against the six GA criteria:


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * There were a couple of minor spelling/grammatical issues, but those were easier to simply fix than comment about. It might be good to give it another good, final copyedit, in case I missed anything. But otherwise, it's quite easy to read.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * It's overall well cited using reliable sources. However, the WP:OR/citations issue is a bit ambiguous in the first paragraph under 'Infrageneric placement'. It seems to be referring to a '1996 cladistic analysis', but there's no citation for that (unless that citation is somewhere else that I couldn't find?). Please clarify this by adding a citation..
 * Fixed. How odd; that is a key publication. I wonder how we managed to miss it. Hesperian 01:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article seems to cover the major aspects of the topic. There's a couple of minor issues that could be done a little bit better. First, I'd recommend changing 'ecology' to 'reproduction', as the section seems to cover the reproduction and flowering more than the ecological aspects. Secondly, in the 'conservation' section, the first major subsection refers to an 'extensive land clearing of the 1930s'. I'm assuming that this is a specific event, though the link to land clearing is red (non-existent). I would think that a generic article on "land clearing" is really unnecessary, as it would probably result in an article that's quickly orphaned and forgotten. But a specific article on a Western Australia Land Clearing event might be notable, so maybe change the link. Even so, in the absence of an article on this event, perhaps just expand the section to provide more details on this land clearing event? Third, the lead section is overall good, but could use a bit more summary of the conservation aspects mentioned.
 * Regarding "ecology" v "reproduction", I'm going to have to disagree with that one. Reproduction is an aspect of ecology, and this is especially true when one takes into acount pollination vectors, serotiny, seed granivory, moisture stress on seedlings, and so on. I really think "ecology" is the most appropriate section heading here. Hesperian 01:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say that that is wrong. Ecology != reproduction. Ecology is defined as how an organism interacts in its environment. Reproduction deals specifically with how an organism reproduces (meiosis, mitosis, sexual/asexual, flowering, live birth, lays eggs, etc). Ecology most certainly plays a role, but it's not the same thing. Dr. Cash (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I do see that it is related. What about possibly renaming the section to something like 'Reproduction and Ecology'. Because the first part dealing with a description of the flower really has nothing to do with ecology, but the section does get more into how the ecology does impact the reproduction of the organism, so I can see how they're related. Dr. Cash (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We agree on the definition of ecology; this is a good thing, which, unfortunately, cannot be taken for granted on Wikipedia. Too many people have an extremely fuzzy understanding of the term, but don't know it. Perhaps I should have said "Sexual reproduction is an aspect of ecology", since an organism must interact in order to reproduce sexually. Reproduction is an aspect of life cycle, and aspects like seedling mortality fit better with "Life cycle and ecology" than with "Reproduction and ecology". Are you satisfied with the former? Hesperian 02:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm,... 'Life cycle and ecology' works. I like that! Dr. Cash (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding "land clearing", this is associated with the opening up of the wheatbelt. Changed to "Even before the extensive clearing of the Wheatbelt in the 1930s...". Hesperian 01:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Will work on the lead.... Hesperian
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article meets the WP:NPOV criterion.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * The article is stable. There doesn't appear to be any edit warring.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Images are of quite good quality, have suitable captions, and are tagged appropriately. However, if the organism is a shrub or small tree of 15 ft in height, perhaps an image of the overall organism should be added, instead of just pictures of the flowers? I won't hold up a GA over this, but moving forward, it would be nice to have.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, the article is very close to meeting the six GA criteria. Once these issues are addressed, it can be listed. Dr. Cash (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks heaps for the review. Hesperian 01:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The GA criteria have been met now. The article can be listed. Nice work. Dr. Cash (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)