Talk:Adenanthos cuneatus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Adenanthos cuneatus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 26, 2013.
WikiProject Australia / Biota (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Adenanthos cuneatus is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (marked as Low-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
WikiProject Plants (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Web of science[edit]

Search yielded one article: - Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Title: Phytotoxicity in relation to in planta concentration of the fungicide phosphite in nine Western Australian native species Author(s): Barrett SR, Shearer BL, Hardy GES Source: AUSTRALASIAN PLANT PATHOLOGY Volume: 33 Issue: 4 Pages: 521-528 Published: 2004 Times Cited: 4

Yes check.svg Done added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

See page 830-38, which is:

Weins D, Renfree M and Wooller RD, 1979. Pollen loads of Honey possums (Tarsipes spencerae) and non-flying mammal pollination in South-western Australia. Annals of the Missouri Botanic Gardens 66: 830-838.

GA Review[edit]

Toolbox

See WP:DEADREF
for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Adenanthos cuneatus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Criteria

</noinclude>

  1. Well-written:
    (a) the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
    (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.