Wikipedia:Peer review/Banksia integrifolia/archive1
Looking like its ready for FA just wanted to get some opinions and have the PR bot run over the article to check for any minor issues. Gnangarra 15:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Intresting tree article. Im sure it was hell diging up information on this. My only issue is the bolding through out the article of some terms, to my knowledge that isn't proper MoS. Would italics be better? - Tutmosis 15:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- This is one of the easier species for information as its has such a large distribution area, Italics are used for taxa naming, i'll check on the bold it should be used for common naming in the first instance. Gnangarra 16:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Intresting tree article. Im sure it was hell diging up information on this. My only issue is the bolding through out the article of some terms, to my knowledge that isn't proper MoS. Would italics be better? - Tutmosis 15:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- Good work! I do wonder whether you should mention Joseph Banks et al. in the lead. It seems pretty trivial to need repition in the lead. If you do believe it necessary I think you should mention the aboriginal names first. As it is now it makes the European collection more prominant than the information that predates it. Also if that stays in the lead you should de-link the names repeated in the taxonnmy section.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 04:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting. Hadn't thought of it that way and chronologically that makes sense,I have never seen it written anywhere else like that....Might have a play with it.... cheers. Cas Liber 05:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)