Talk:Hypericum huber-morathii
Hypericum huber-morathii is currently a Biology and medicine good article nominee. Nominated by Fritzmann (message me) at 02:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer. Short description: Species of flowering plant in the St John's wort family Hypericaceae |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Hypericum huber-morathii/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Fritzmann2002 (talk · contribs) 02:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: GMH Melbourne (talk · contribs) 01:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hello, I will be reviewing this article assigned by WP:GARC. I will get to this ASAP and plan to finish the review within 7 days. GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- I have done a check of certain items of the GA criteria, outstanding issues are in bold. I should have my spot check and prose review complete within 48 hours. GMH Melbourne (talk) 05:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- There are a few names of authors, publishers, websites, etc. that aren't wikilinked where an article exists (eg. Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, JSTOR, Robson, Norman (in the bibliography section)). I am not sure if it's required but it would make the reference section consistent.
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- No issues
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Infobox image seems to be licensed under CC0-1.0 on the Natual History Museum website but is listed on commons as cc-by-sa-4.0.
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- Per MOS:ALT and for accessibility, the image in the infobox should have the image_alt parameter and perhaps (but not required) the image_caption parameter.
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail: