Talk:Cyclocarya

Random Evaluation
This article is a randomly selected subject of my attempt to guage the evolving quality of Wikipedia. I will occasionally select 10 article at random (using the "Random article" feature, of course) and grade each of them using the Good Article standard below: What is a good article? A good article has the following attributes. 1. It is well written. 2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. 3. It is broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);. 4. It follows the neutral point of view policy. 5. It is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. 6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

May 21, 2008

 * 1) Cyclocarya
 * 2) *Well written? - FAILED - Stub.
 * 3) *Factually accurate? - FAILED - Cites only one source: eflora.org
 * 4) *Broad in its coverage? - FAILED.
 * 5) *NPOV - Yes.
 * 6) *Is it stable? - Yes.
 * 7) *Images - None - would seem to be an essential element for a genus of flowering plant.

- Davodd (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)