Talk:Fertilisation of Orchids/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am reviewing this article for GA and find it to be a fascinating article. I have two major comments.

Comments

The lede needs to reflect more accurately a summary of the contents of the article body. I tacked some material into the lede, but you can do a better job.
The last section "Influence" would benefit the article by explaining more directly how this article as influencial in its own right as well as its role as a building block to On the Origin of Species and the theory of natural selection.
It is too bad that the daughter article Natural theology is in such bad shape. It may be that you need to explain a little more in your article to compensate.

It is a wonderful article. I may have a few other comments as I look through it again.

—Mattisse (Talk) 20:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very helpful changes and these comments, due to the time of day here I'll have to review the points raised tomorrow and try to come up with improvements. . . dave souza, talk 20:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have now made a number of changes, particularly to the last section and the lede, hope that's a suitable improvement. Will now review the images, but had better do some gardening first :-/ . . dave souza, talk 12:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

"botanical women" or female botanists?

—Mattisse (Talk) 15:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Browne says "botanical women" with the implication that they weren't necessarily professional botanists, but female botanists sounds better. What think you? Sorry this is going slowly, but there's a lot of useful stuff in Browne and it seemed a good idea to introduce more secondary sourcing. Previously I'd picked up info from Browne, but used the online sources to get things in date order and give more background, and hadn't cited Browne. She has some good pages on the influence, or at least the response to publication, so I'm working towards that. . dave souza, talk 17:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry. Take your time. There is no deadline as long as you are working on it. To me "botanical women" sounds like a charity circle that supports the botanical gardens! —Mattisse (Talk) 17:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it to "women who were botany enthusiasts". . . dave souza, talk 12:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article certainly is a GA material. It has all the elements that a GA should posses. It has been written very systematically and has been very well organized. I therefore recommend the reviewers to have a good look at the article and award it the GA status. Nefirious (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The editor started adding material after my review commenced. I am waiting to be sure he is finished. I indicated to him to take his time. I was involved in his last two FA's so I have every confidence in the quality and accuracy of his writing. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep you waiting, I've implemented the changes as suggested, including revisions to the illustrations, so that's me finished now. Any further comments welcome! . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a wonderful article. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Beautifully written b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Covers broad aspects and context b (focused): Remains focused on topic
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: Neutral
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: Stable
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: Pass

My only qualm is about the gallery, if you intend to go to FAC. I am not sure how they feel about that. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Guess we can find out by putting it up for FAC, an alternative would be a commonscat button but it seemed useful to give thumbnail images of the scans. So, onwards and upwards! . . dave souza, talk 18:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]