Talk:Salvia yangii/GA1

(Redirected from Talk:Perovskia atriplicifolia/GA1)
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 2A01:CB1D:2E:3500:E1E7:E4C7:BAFD:3B13 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Tim riley (talk · contribs) 21:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply


Starting first read-through. More soonest. Tim riley talk 21:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Comments

edit

Unless there is some established WP exception for plants, I think you should use double rather than single quotes (see MoS) for the plant names such as 'Longin', 'Little Spire' etc' That apart, which please consider, I can see no respect in which this article fails to meet the GA criteria. The coverage seems full and balanced, there are ample references from a range of impressive sources, and the pictures are lovely and properly documented.

Overall summary

edit

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

This strikes me as a fine piece of work, and I am happy to promote it. Tim riley talk 15:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Tim riley! The single mark is a convention in botany, and literally every source I consulted used single, not double marks. Nonetheless, I'll do some follow-up research as this might be a convention in botany that we need not follow here, much in the same way that astronomy papers capitalize the Sun, but we generally do not. RO(talk) 16:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I've asked about this at the relevant Wikiproject: ([1]), so if I'm wrong to follow the convention I'm sure someone there will set me straight. Thanks again for the review! RO(talk) 16:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Now you mention it, I believe I've run across this before. Well, if the scholarly convention outside Wiki-land is single quotes, I leave it to the MoS zealots to demand doubles if they feel they must. I'm inclined to say to Hell with 'em. Tim riley talk 17:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
I am not sure what you are doing reviewing plant entry, when you seem to be totally ignorant of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Code_of_Nomenclature_for_Cultivated_Plants . Most beginner gardeners know that the names of cultivars are given in single, not double quotes. I don't mean to be rude, but the idea of double is really crazy. 2A01:CB1D:2E:3500:E1E7:E4C7:BAFD:3B13 (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply