Talk:Human uses of plants

Human uses of plants has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: December 21, 2016. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human uses of plants article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

Culture Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture 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.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Plants in culture. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://library.cshl.edu/archives/archives/bmcbio.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Plants in culture/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Icebob99 (talk · contribs) 15:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'll be reviewing this article. I'll check it against the criteria and list some concerns that need to be met as well as a few of my suggestions that will be optional. Those two types of comments will be clearly separated from one another. Let's get to it! Icebob99 (talk) 15:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC) I should also note that I may make some of the changes myself. No need to list trivial improvements.[reply]

GA criteria concerns

Last sentence of the lead: perhaps replace the word "endless" with the word "many". Per WP:MoS/Words to watch in GA criteria

Suggestions

Last sentence of the "in science" section about space colonies relying on plants: I suggest rewording to say something along the lines of "NASA predicts that ... may sustain..." instead of leaving in the general "this may happen"
The middle of the first paragraph of the "in art" section: not necessary for GA status, but I suggest adding a reference for the material about Virgin Mary compared to a lily. Nice to have a reference for that sort of thing.

Alright, that finishes my concerns and suggestions. I'm fixing the one GA criteria concern myself; it would be petty to make someone else fix it. Going through the criteria one by one:

Well written: A+ on this mark. Well wikilinked as well
All the references check out. Only thing lacking was Virgin Mary comparison as mentioned in suggestions, but that isn't a criterion for GA.
Good broad coverage. Comprehensive but not overly detailed.
Good neutrality. See the one word choice concern above.
Lots of images!

Closing commentary: I think this is an obvious pass. I fixed the one issue. Well-written article: I suggest taking this to FA pretty soon. Maybe add some more content just as a perfunctory measure between GA and FA, but that isn't required. Congratulations! This officially passes. Icebob99 (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you! I'll follow up suggestions when back at base. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]