Talk:History of botany/GA2

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: found and fixed one dab. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Well written, follows the MoS sufficiently.
 * I made a number or minor copy-edits.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Well referenced, references check out, assume good faith for off line sources
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * A good, but not over detailed summary with links to appropriate sub-articles
 * 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The text is awkwardly sandwiched between File:Mature flower diagram.svg and File:Angiosperm life cycle diagram.svg ✅
 * Otherwise images licensed, tagged and captioned well
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, on hold for seven days. Just some image re-arrangement needed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting that out. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, on hold for seven days. Just some image re-arrangement needed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting that out. I am happy to pass this as a good article. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably behooves us to be careful about off-line sources. This area has been subject to boosterism by Jagged85 and others, and claims have been copied around Wikipedia. I fixed one problem with this article, but there may be more. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC).