Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia aemula/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:36, 6 July 2010 [1].
Banksia aemula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because... Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now I can and have grown this lovely garden plant...I hope that by writing about it I will be able to transplant a gnarly old one successfully from my old to new garden...here's hoping...but seriously, I think it is the equal of the past 11 banksia FAs and I promise this will be the last banksia for a little while (we..ell maybe second last).Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Images all look OK, no dab links, no dead external links. It appears to be comprehensive and otherwise also meets the FA criteria. (I did the GA review for this Banksia.) Ucucha 05:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Not wildly keen about the large left-aligned images, but that's a matter of taste; my opinion of WP:MOSIMAGES is not high. Just one minor thing; you mention assorted critters feeding from the flowers, but does anything actually eat the plant itself? – iridescent 17:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The leaves are pretty tough and leathery, so I can't imagine they are very palatable. There is nothing in the literature about it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - excellent work. Dincher (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support There was a couple of very minor issues that I've already fixed, this one is comparable to the other Banksia FAs at this rate every banksia species will be FA in couple of
monthsyears well done Cas. Gnangarra 13:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Support
and mini-issuesjust to give you something to do Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
scientific name as of 1981 — "as of" is normally used for dates that might change, shouldn't this be "since"?
- yeah, not likely to change again, so made since Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(1.4–9 in) — personally i'd put "9.0" to keep the sig figs consistent
- Ooh, not sure about this one. My preference for ease of reading is that I am happy to let slide one ".0" in the interests of friendliness to the eyes...'Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phytophthora cinnamomi dieback. However... — not sure what the contrast is here. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, okay, one of the reasons many banksias need good drainage is that all the western species are sensitive to dieback. The eastern species aren't, but this one does need good drainage. I guess on a more global view there are mant plants which need good drainage which is not related to dieback, so removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I did a few formatting consistency edits and a few hyphens. One thing remains is why are some of the initials in the form "RP" "R.P." and "R. P."? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just me importing refs and varying formats. I have corrected the offending two name formats. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources issues: An italics glitch needs fixing in ref 30. Otherwise sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- got it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.