Talk:Salvia yangii/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 21:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Starting first read-through. More soonest.  Tim riley  talk    21:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments
Unless there is some established WP exception for plants, I think you should use double rather than single quotes (see MoS) for the plant names such as 'Longin', 'Little Spire' etc' That apart, which please consider, I can see no respect in which this article fails to meet the GA criteria. The coverage seems full and balanced, there are ample references from a range of impressive sources, and the pictures are lovely and properly documented.

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 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:

This strikes me as a fine piece of work, and I am happy to promote it.  Tim riley  talk    15:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tim riley! The single mark is a convention in botany, and literally every source I consulted used single, not double marks. Nonetheless, I'll do some follow-up research as this might be a convention in botany that we need not follow here, much in the same way that astronomy papers capitalize the Sun, but we generally do not. RO (talk)  16:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've asked about this at the relevant Wikiproject:, so if I'm wrong to follow the convention I'm sure someone there will set me straight. Thanks again for the review! RO (talk)  16:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Now you mention it, I believe I've run across this before. Well, if the scholarly convention outside Wiki-land is single quotes, I leave it to the MoS zealots to demand doubles if they feel they must. I'm inclined to say to Hell with 'em.  Tim riley  talk    17:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are doing reviewing plant entry, when you seem to be totally ignorant of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Nomenclature_for_Cultivated_Plants . Most beginner gardeners know that the names of cultivars are given in single, not double quotes. I don't mean to be rude, but the idea of double is really crazy. 2A01:CB1D:2E:3500:E1E7:E4C7:BAFD:3B13 (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)