Talk:Botanical garden/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Pyrotec, I look forward to your comments.  Granitethighs  23:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments
I've now done a couple of skim read throughs. Overall, I suspect that this article is closer to FA than GA; but I will only be reviewing it against the requirements of WP:WIAGA, i.e. I'm not doing a FA review. Having said that, I've seen one citation needed and a couple of direct quotations that do not appear to have citations. So these will need to be fixed before I award GA (it would probably be thrown out at WP:FAC for these glaringly obvious defects).

I will now start my detailed review. I tend to leave the WP:Lead until last, unless there is an urgent need to do so first, and will do so this time. I will also mainly be highlighting "problems" at this stage, so if a section is (mostly) free of problems I shalln't be saying much about in the first pass. I suspect that this part will take a day or so. Pyrotec (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Definition -
 * ✅ - I'm assuming good faith and that the two direct quotations come from ref 1 (Bailey & Bailey, 1978, Page 173). However, it would be better if Ref 1 was appended to both direct quotations.
 * ✅ - As there are two main definitions, i.e. paragraphs one and two, and paragraph three, should not the section title be Definitions?


 * The botanical gardens network -
 * ✅ I hope this is OK now - I have moved the citation to the quote? - Citation [www 4] appears to be the reference for the direct quotation "To mobilise botanic gardens and engage partners in securing plant diversity for the well-being of people and the planet", so it aught to be appended to the quotation, not placed after BGCI.
 * It is the web site for BGCI itself. The quote is cited separately.  Granitethighs  04:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear, I talking about this pargraph. The quotation has no citation. "More recently coordination has also been provided by Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI)[www 4] which has the mission "To mobilise botanic gardens and engage partners in securing plant diversity for the well-being of people and the planet". BGCI has over 700 members – mostly botanic gardens – in 118 countries and strongly supports the Global strategy for plant conservation[www 5] by producing a range resources and publications, and by organizing international conferences and conservation programs." Pyrotec (talk) 16:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Historical development -
 * ✅ Yes - what a verbal soup. I've tried to make it more coherent. - I'm not sure that the following is a sentence: "When the botanical gardens of the 16th and 17th centuries changed from medicinal gardens to sites displaying beautiful, strange and new[6] (sometimes economically important) plants from distant lands, and further in the 18th century to sites demonstrating the latest plant classification systems devised by botanists working in the associated herbaria, and then to the modern mix of specialist and eclectic gardens serving many interests of horticulture and botany.[7]".


 * Subsections - 16th century European gardens & 17th century -
 * ✅ Yes - I have adjusted the headings and text so that the text makes chronological sense. - The headings and the text is somewhat jumbled up. For example: the second sub-subsection of 16th century European gardens - Northern Europe - contains links to both 16th and 17th gardens. It is followed by the subsection 17th century which has a sub-subsection Beginnings of botanical science which discusses also both 16th and 17th gardens. I think that either the subsections and subsubsections need to be combined some how, or the existing text moved to the relevant subsection and/or sub-subsection.

Pyrotec (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Role and functions -
 * ✅ Fixed - hope OK. The citation needed needs addressing.


 * Future -
 * ✅ Added explanatory caption. The text is OK; but I'm not sure what the image of Eden project is doing there. Perhaps its something to do with ecosystems or stability, but the caption aught to make this clear.


 * WP:Lead -
 * ✅ Looks OK.

(biased) comment: I'm more than happy to accept that the named examples given are a combination of editor's choices and the the availability of references/citations. I happen to like this one:.

At this point I'm putting the review on Hold. There are just a few minor "problems" that need attention before I can award GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Overall sumary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 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:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on produced a fine readable article. Pyrotec (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)