Talk:Xanthostemon chrysanthus

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xanthostemon chrysanthus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130616062342/http://asgap.org.au:80/x-chr.html to http://asgap.org.au/x-chr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Revision of 17 May 2023

@Mat Kiyan I have reverted the two edits you made today on this article - the second one you did was a reiteration of an existing statement in the "Cultivation" section so it was not needed. The first edit you made has a question mark hanging over it, as Plants of the World Online, Australian Tropical Rainforest Plants, and the Australasian Virtual Herbarium all disagree with it. Given that the cited source is a 'newsletter' and not a professionally written paper, I chose to remove it. That's not to say that the claim is incorrect - just that it needs a better citation. If you can find one please feel free to make a new edit to the article. Cheers, Steve  Junglenut |Talk  09:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I don't know the FRIM web source has certain criteria or differences that qualify it as a newsletter? The content I read did not inform current activities of the institute (as I understand what a newsletter would do), but it just tells me briefly about the plants their scientists study? So I thought it might be OK to cite it here at the time.

Nevertheless, I trust you being more knowledgable than I am, and I understand the removal. I'll try to find more solid sources as you suggested the next time I edit the page, thank you for the feedback. - Mat Kiyan (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)