Talk:Eucalyptus rubida

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: New South Wales / Tasmania / Victoria / Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Eucalyptus rubida is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Tasmania (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales, or the State Library of Victoria, or the State Library of Tasmania.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

I have just created this. Need to check some books tonight to confirm & expand a few details. Could someone verify the Sieber ex. Spreng binomial bit? (Left it in during paste from another page - probably correct but not certain).

The note about firewood is original research. Alexander110 04:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contribution! I've gone ahead and changed the binomial authority per the APNI, which lists H.Deane & Maiden as the authority. I've also removed your mention of its use as firewood. Unless you can cite a source that notes it's usefulness (or lack thereof) as firewood, it's original research, as you noted, and should not be included in the article. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 04:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Add topic