Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Banksia/Article notes

HI guys, I'm contemplating taking the current Banksia article through GA then PR getting it ready for FA nominations, or should I take say Banksia menziesii first. Any thoughts? Gnangarra 06:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what's GA? I am a neophyte at all this so whatever you think will do it. Maybe put them all to FA nomination since there are loads of dinosaur articles going in....Cas Liber 06:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

quick intro Good Article is an article recognition review, similar to FA but the review is done by one person based on a specific criteria WP:WIAGA, takes about 14 days to be assessed. Peer review is a review only process that looks at the structure of the article and prose of the article, takes only hours before response start occuring. From what I've seen articles that have already been through GA and PR have less issues when being nominated for FA, and are more successful at attaining FA status. Gnangarra 07:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take Banksia menziesii through PR first Gnangarra

We couldn't get Banksia through WP:GA because one of the conditions is stability, which Banksia lacks. I'd be opposed anyhow. until we think it is finished or nearly so. Right now there is lots of work to be done on the Banksia article, and I think PR and GA would be a disruption rather than a help. Snottygobble 11:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, right. In which case several of the longer species (ericifolia, spinulosa, menziesii) are better bets. I will scrape my notes for any more info to add to them first Cas Liber 11:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, B.menziesii is in PR now so I'll take that to GA then bring the other two on. Gnangarra 11:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(did I mention this before?)I asked Alex George about a pic and he was amused but didn't really have anything.Cas Liber 20:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Took a snap of Alex when I saw him at a party. Will upload it soon :) Cas Liber 07:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkalocka

I'm inclined to remove this from the Banksia project. Thoughts? Hesperian 03:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. A minor entryCas Liber 07:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fun and games

Just for fun, I ran google searches on each of the Banksia species, with "-wiki" to exclude our work (although this didn't get rid of all the mirrors/scrapers). It gave an interesting insight into what are the prominent and obscure species. At the prominent end, there are ten species that got over 9000 hits; in descending order: B. integrifolia, B. serrata, B. marginata, B. ericifolia, B. spinulosa, B. grandis, B. menziesii, B. robur, B. attenuata, B. coccinea. All the rest had less than 1200 hits.

At the other end of the scale, B kingii had only 79 hits; no surprises there - it is a fossil. A further six had less than 200 hits; in ascending order: B. telmatiaea, B. aquilonia, B. rosserae, B. lanata, B. oreophila.

These results should be taken with a grain of salt. e.g. I might have missed a lot of hits for B. aquilonia because pages still call it "B. integrifolia var./subsp. aquilonia". And some species names, like B. telmatiaea, are a bugger to spell, so there might be more pages under misspellings.

Hesperian 00:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, many eastern species are prominent as they are widely listed in reveg and species lists, as well as being widely commercially available from wholesale and retail nurseries. Cas Liber 07:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]