Talk:Sydney society for conservation biology

Response
In response to some issues, the following editions have now been implemented: There are more references to the statements made in the article. There is now a clear "lead section" and adheres to the layout guidelines. Further secondary sources are being added to establish notability (in progress). The article "Society for Conservation Biology" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_conservation_biology) links to this page under it's "Chapter" heading with a reference to the "Sydney Chapter",so it should no longer be marked as an "orphan" article.
 * Thank you so very Much i appreciate it.   Crown Prince    Talk  09:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback and editing! One issue refers to potentially unreliable. Which references do you deem to be unreliable? Also, which parts do you think require further references? ConservationaustraliaConservationaustralia (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2013 (UTC)