Talk:Flora Antarctica/GA2

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 01:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll pick this up ... Ealdgyth (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, I hope you enjoy it! Chiswick Chap (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
 * Noted. ✅


 * Source check: "The voyage to the Antarctic on the Ross Expedition, when he was 23 years old, was his first" is sourced to this source, which it supports. "It contained a "milestone essay on biogeography"," is sourced to this source which it supports.
 * Noted. ✅


 * General:
 * "Ross Expedition" or "Ross expedition" you use both
 * 'e' it is. ✅


 * Lead:
 * "Although Hooker professed not to have changed his views on the naturalist Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection," this is confusing because we're not told what his views were that didn't change. This bit is also not discussed in teh body of the article so should either be elaborated in the body or removed entirely.
 * Fixed. ✅


 * Ross and earlier:
 * "On 21 April the giant kelp Macrocystis pyrifera was found off Marion Island, but" ... was this the first time it was found or was it just ... there? It's confusing.
 * It was seen. It had already been described scientifically. ✅
 * "Large floating forests of Macrocystis and Durvillaea were found until the ships run into the icebergs" I believe you mean "Large floating forests of Macrocystis and Durvillaea were found until the ships ran into the icebergs"?
 * Fixed. ✅
 * "to collect the plants." either name "the plants" collected (not necessary as we're just doing background) or should it be "to collect further specimens."?
 * To collect plants. ✅
 * "Hooker praised the work of the English botanist" I presume these praises are in the Flora Antarctica - probably should state that.
 * Done. ✅
 * "Few earlier floras of the region" ... this is going to read a bit odd to most folks... they aren't going to think of "flora" as some sort of written work without some explanation - suggest "Few earlier written descriptions of plants, or floras, of the region" or similar.
 * Done. ✅


 * Walter Hood Fitch:
 * "William Jackson Hooker" do we need to repeat the FULL name instead of "William Hooker"?
 * Fixed. ✅


 * Publication history:
 * "plates which figure 1095 of the species" I'd expect "plates which depict 1095 of the species" would be more comprehensible to most folks.
 * Done. ✅


 * Botany of Lord Auckland's:
 * "80 plates and map" is this "80 plates and maps" or "80 plates and a map"?
 * Done. ✅
 * "and figures 150 species" again, figures is odd and "illustrates" would be more comprehensible to most readers
 * Done. ✅


 * Botany of Fuegia:
 * "and figures 220 species" depicts or illustrates again would be more comprehensible
 * Done. ✅


 * Flora Novae-Z:
 * "figured" - depicts/illustrated again
 * Done. ✅


 * Flora Tasmaniae:
 * "figured" same as above.
 * Done. ✅


 * I did a bit of copyediting as usual. Please double check that I've not broken anything.
 * Seems ok! ✅


 * I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Those changes look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)