Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia ericifolia


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 21:04, 31 July 2007.

Banksia ericifolia
I am nominating a fourth Banksia article for FAC, this is the first one in several months - I feel it is equivalent to the others; Banksia integrifolia and Banksia epica being the most recent. It is easily the most comprehensive account on the plant online, thoroughly referenced (inlined and cite format), neutral and stable. I feel the prose is the equal of the others and have copyedited wih some help from others. It has a concise lead summarising the article and the images are free (I took most of the photos meself!). There are 2 redlinks which I can fix promptly. Leave me input and I'll address promptly. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC) OK, I'm not a huge fan of See Also sections (but can be persuaded) - I put a link to another official botanic gardens page and there's commons links etc. at the bottom. Can you think of anything on wiki that you feel would be good to have at the bottom for quick reference or which somehow cannot be linked in the main article? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good article. The end section - the actual finish up of the article - might like a see also section, and a few more external links might be nice just to round the article off. otheriwse I think this looks good to be ed. Cheers -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it - not really. So scratch the see also section if you want. But I think maybe, if at all possible, a few more externals might be nice, just to sort of fill up that big white space at the bottom. If you cant: thats fine too. These are very minor things we are talking; all I am saying is discountable. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support I've hidden my list because the striking and stuff makes it confusing to look at. Circeus 11:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support From an outsiders point of view, i think the article looks pretty good, meets all the criteria. My only nitpicks are the following:
 * In the image in "description" the name of the plant is bolded, yet in other pictures the name isnt? it just doesnt seem consistant. Personally, i dont think it should be bolded in the first place. (yoicks! well spotted and removed)
 * I dislike it when two or more citations marks are eight next to eachother, it looks ugly. You may wish to "merge" them (see reference 22 on Hamersley). This happens several times in the article, 26&27, 5&6, 7&8. (It's late here - will have a look at Hamersley tomorrow as I've not seen it done elsewhere)''
 * (Previously mentioned) Massive white gap at the bottom of the page (ext links). Maybe you could slide some of the commons/source boxes up little bit, so that there isnt the white gaps. (will tweak away tomorrow)
 * Apart from those few nitpicks, i think the article is ready for the star. Twenty Years 14:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * formatted EL's into a table, to remove the white space. Gnangarra 15:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding combined notes, I don't think it works very well for complete references (as opposed to abbreviated ones). Multiple footnotes are alright. Circeus 11:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Comment  This article covers the subject matter very thoroughly. It is well-written in general, but there are just a couple of sections that I think need attention as follows:
 * Taxonomy
 * In the second paragraph of the taxonomy section there is a bit of a rapid-fire namedropping (Salisbury, Alf Salkin, Theile, Mast, Eric Jones, Shaun Havery) mostly with no introduction / context /link to indicate who the people are i.e. botanist, taxonomist etc. Also I think that consistently including the first names of all individuals for their first mention in a WP article (in contrast to a scientific paper) would be a bit more “user friendly” for a wider readership.
 * (OK, I've clarified several of the more important ones with nationalities and occupations where known and first names - I had meant to do this but forgot, so thanks for reminding me)


 * As in nature, Banksia ericifolia inflorescences attract birds to the garden. (need to state that the bird attractant qualities of this plant are  a factor making it popular in cultivation, but the wording which makes a rigid distinction between what happens in gardens and nature doesn’t work ) ✅

✅ - ''though pondering whether to move this sentence to cultivar section actually...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My comments done and dusted; I fully support this article's promotion to featured status. Nice work. Melburnian 12:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.