Talk:Banksia coccinea/GA1
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 23:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Happy to offer a review. J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- The last couple of lines of the lead feel repetitive- you mention humid summers twice, and it's the second time dieback has been mentioned.
- "The stems have begun developing the previous spring and there is no visible evidence of flower spike development for around five months before the buds actually appear—the whole process taking 9-12 months in total." Odd tense- it's actually fairly jarring
- Yes this is tricky - I have tried arranging it more chronologically - does that help? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- "of 286±24 individual flowers" Technical- could this be spelled out in any way?
- "Style" is a little jargony to be used without a definition/link, I feel. Same for "perianth", "pistil", "recurved" and "infructescence"- these make the article difficult for the uninitiated.
- Some metric lengths are converted, some aren't- I was wondering how you made the choice?
- "what is now the present-day" Redundancy
- "He recorded 31 species of Banksia in his 1810 work Prodromus Florae Novae Hollandiae et Insulae Van Diemen, and in his taxonomic arrangement, placed the taxon in the" Difficult to read. Perhaps you could place a comma between "and" and "in", making "in his taxonomic arrangement" a parenthetical adverbial clause.
- Should "incertae sedis" be italicised? I suspect so. A link would also be good.
- "Maguire" is the first person not referred to by full name (also Cardillo later)
- Munglinup worth linking? Redlinks aren't a bad thing!
- "97 %" Why the space?
- "The larvae moult and feed until January to March the larvae feed, when they reduce activity until early October" Something's gone wrong
- "by Dr Margaret Sedgley of" Why "Dr"? Surely most of the people you cite will have doctorates.
Sources all seem approriate- any formatting issues are too minor to worry about for GAC, though I think two columns would be more aesthetically pleasing. Pictures are all great, spotchecks reveal no problems. This definitely seems close to GA level.
Please double-check my edits! J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
02:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I'm happy with your changes, so I'm going to go ahead and promote. Great work, as ever. J Milburn (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)