Talk:Flora of Scotland/GA1

GA Review

OK, obviously nearly there, a few comments

1. General: A bit of overlinking, eg vascular plants twice in intro, prose a bit choppy in places with lots of short sentences, some binomials not italicised (eg Tetrodontium brownianum, Marsupella arctica)

First and last  Done

1. Habitats : this would have included much larger areas of boreal wouldn’t there would have been read better?

•  Done

1. Flowering plants and shrubs: partly due to the effects of Pleistocene glaciations. Half a sentence to explain this?

•  Done

1. Spear Thistle in image caption Why italics? introduced from there is from there necessary?

•  Done

1. Grasses and sedges are common everywhere except dune systems I thought Marram grass was a dune coloniser?

You are right of course, but there are dune systems where this is just about the only grass species. I'll try and come up with a more accurate wording.

1. Deciduous trees: The trees developed in a highly complex fashion involving the Common Whitebeam (S. aria) giving rise to the more robust Rock Whitebeam (S. rupicola) which is found on Holy Isle. The Rock Whitebeam then interbred with the Rowan (S. aucuparia) to produce the new hybrids. I didn’t understand this - how did it give rise to Rock Whitebeam? What new hybrids – only species have been mentioned?

I really wish these trees would settle down - the continued proliferation of news species is both inconvenient and unseemly. I have looked at the literature and I can see no justification for the "giving rise to" phrase which was borrowed from Arran Whitebeams. In this case "hybrids" = the new species, but I have amended the text to deal with this too.

1. Conifers: 64 metres - conversion needed

•  Done

1. Mosses: Sphagnum, is common and harvested commercially. For what purpose?

•  Done

1. Notes: some books need isbn numbers

•  Done

1. Dates of retrieval - if going to FAC, links for dates now deprecated

Could you direct me to the relevant change/policy?

1. Why not put the full book titles under a separate References heading?

Will do.

1. Excavations in the ceremonial complex of the forth to second. millennium punctuation odd, should it be fourth?

•  Done

1. ref 95 binomial should be in Roman if rest is italic

•  Done

1. red listed species –needs a link iucn? European? British?

•  Done

O Fhlùir na h-Alba, cuin a chì sinn an seòrsa laoich

Not a bad bit of the Erse for a Spurs fan.

jimfbleak (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this, and apologies for sloppiness. First and second passes complete. More to follow. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 18:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you’ve done enough for assessment now. On the retrieval dates, ignore for now, not sure about official position myself, but take advice from Sandy Georgia before you go to FAC jimfbleak (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Many thanks. Let me know if can help on anything ornithological. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 09:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I know your articles aren't going to give me much grief. Thanks for the ornithology offer. Perhaps birds of Scotland might be your next oeuvre? jimfbleak (talk) 09:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite by co-incidence I saw my old friend Pandion this morning who hinted at something similar. I'll let you know if a draft appears on the conveyor belt. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 10:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)