Talk:Salvia yangii/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 21:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 21:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Unless there is some established WP exception for plants, I think you should use double rather than single quotes (see MoS) for the plant names such as 'Longin', 'Little Spire' etc' That apart, which please consider, I can see no respect in which this article fails to meet the GA criteria. The coverage seems full and balanced, there are ample references from a range of impressive sources, and the pictures are lovely and properly documented.

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Well referenced.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Well referenced.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Well illustrated.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Well illustrated.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

This strikes me as a fine piece of work, and I am happy to promote it. Tim riley talk 15:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim riley! The single mark is a convention in botany, and literally every source I consulted used single, not double marks. Nonetheless, I'll do some follow-up research as this might be a convention in botany that we need not follow here, much in the same way that astronomy papers capitalize the Sun, but we generally do not. RO ^(talk) 16:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked about this at the relevant Wikiproject: ([1]), so if I'm wrong to follow the convention I'm sure someone there will set me straight. Thanks again for the review! RO ^(talk) 16:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now you mention it, I believe I've run across this before. Well, if the scholarly convention outside Wiki-land is single quotes, I leave it to the MoS zealots to demand doubles if they feel they must. I'm inclined to say to Hell with 'em. Tim riley talk 17:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are doing reviewing plant entry, when you seem to be totally ignorant of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Nomenclature_for_Cultivated_Plants . Most beginner gardeners know that the names of cultivars are given in single, not double quotes. I don't mean to be rude, but the idea of double is really crazy. 2A01:CB1D:2E:3500:E1E7:E4C7:BAFD:3B13 (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]