Talk:Telopea oreades/GA1

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

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 21:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparent mistakes
Before I can even comprehensively review the article, there are two problems I will give the nominator three days to fix:


 * Please fix up reference 23
 * In the binomial authority in the taxobox, please add the date of the discovery as well as the name of the discoverer.

If not addressed in 3 days, I'll be forced to fail the GA, which is a pity since I didn't even comprehensively review it yet. Needs to be fixed.
 * Just fixed problem #2. However, I can't fix the problem with reference 23. Gug01 (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I fixed reference 23 --Melburnian (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Very well. I'll start reviewing the article shortly. Gug01 (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Prose and manual of style
This article has good prose. The article has a lead that serves is purpose, and complies with the manual of style. Gug01 (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Verifiability and references and media
This article contains a list of references in accordance to the manual of style, is referenced properly, and contains no original research. In addition, the images are properly licensed. These images are also relevant to the topic, and they have suitable captions. Gug01 (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutral
This article presents all facts from a neutral point of view. Gug01 (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Coverage
This article is mostly broad in coverage and does not go into unnecessary detail. However, the "Ecology" section needs expansion, because no way a good article could have a vital section contain next to no information. If this is not fixed in 7 days, I will have to fail the article. Gug01 (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * agree - have scoured what I could with little success. I will try to get to university library today to see if I can find anything else to add have managed to expand it - but there is precious little on it written. There is another book I forgot to check at the library I can check again on Monday. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I fully appreciate that it is hard to find information on plant species like these. Still, its part of the criteria. Gug01 (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, have expanded some more - it now has all the specific information I can find (after my second trip to library). Is there any specific information you can see is lacking? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice - I like it. The only bit is that the first sentence in the "Ecology" section can be clarified, but that one sentence does not really matter to the review, so I'm passing the article. Gug01 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Overall
Would pass the article except for the problem of coverage. Gug01 (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Because of the improvement to the ecology section, the article is good to be a good article. Gug01 (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pushing me to go the extra mile in fixing this article. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)