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.
By what you say in lead and "Taxonomy", I infer that the species was formally described in 1991 by Weston and Crisp but was named in 1995. Sounds a bit confusing to me. Also, one fact is clearly mentioned in the lead, while another is stated in "Taxonomy". Needs to be uniform, surely. Just one more thing I noticed, that no year is mentioned in the infobox as when the species was named "binomial authority" part).Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
gah, my bad. Should have been 1991 from the outset. 1995 Flora of Australia was the big official work, but I forgot about its description being in a 1991 paper....fixed now Casliber (talk·contribs) 16:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The lead seems small. I just had a look at another GA, Cordyline australis (in fact you have reviewed it!). It mentions much description and distribution details. Should be same here as well.
working on it. Now expanded a bit. To be fair, this article is much smaller than the cordyline one. Do you think it is big enough now? Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Considering what it comprises of, I think this article has what it needs. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
You say it has been given Vulnerable status by NCA. But neither is it sourced nor is it mentioned anywhere in the article.
d'oh! Will find some official government pages....got some info in now. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Don't forget to link the fact in the infobox. Are EPBC Act and NCA related?Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
One is state, the other national. Will sort out later today. The state predated the national legislation. updated now. Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the three consecutive images squash up the text, while the latter part has none of them. Could it be balanced?
The author names in the citations need to be consistent in format (compare Crisp, Michael D. with Johnson, L. A. S. with Hodge, Merv).
everyone knows Merv as Merv - ditto Mike Crisp and Lawrie Johnston. Will tweak.... Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I meant you should write the names in any of these three ways (say, the name Lawrence Alexander Sidney Johnson) - Johnson, Lawrence A. S. ; Johnson, L. A. S. ; Johnson, Lawrence Alexander Sidney. And this applies to all the names you write. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, as far as possible everyone has a first name and second initial if they have one. Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
That's it. I wait till you respond to my comments. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thanks for being quick off the mark, was just about to go to bed...which I will do now. You are welcome to play with the images. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Quick work of yours, really! You have well messed with the images, the thing looks fine now :D. I have stroke through resolved issues. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Y I think now the article is ready for becoming a GA. I pass it. Congrats! Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)