Talk:Opuntia imbricata
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page. |
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
Opuntia imbricata (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. |
Some information from personal experience. —JerryFriedman 17:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Good Article nomination has failed
The Good article nomination for Opuntia imbricata has failed, for the following reason:
- At the moment the article is not structured very well, although the content is fine. It looks very cluttered - there's not enough text to justify that many images, and the huge one on the left is definitely too large. You should summarise the article's contents in a couple of paragraphs, then break the text up into, say, three sections - something like 'description' and 'range' to add to cultivation which you already have. Worldtraveller 20:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Renominated
- Still looks a little cluttered to me, with too many heavy headers for the length of the article. I'd cut out the first two headers, and just have their paragraphs free-standing, and reduce the cultivation to a ===header=== to remove the underline that splits the page across. I'd also replace the aboutgardenplants.com (too overly commercial) hardiness cite with another non-comm reference (I'll dig one out later). The distribution in Mexico also needs expanding to bring it to state level (as the US distrib already is); the info is at the USDA ARS GRIN page on the species. Also, note that Cylindropuntia is now generally treated as a distinct genus, not a subgenus of Opuntia (so the page will need to be moved). - MPF 09:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks! As long as you notice that the previous reviewer thought it was too cluttered because it didn't have enough headers (and because a photo was too big). —JerryFriedman 16:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Naming
The reference I believe Kalmia was referring to was this one which states that Opuntia imbricata is a synonym for Cylindropuntia imbricata. I don't really have the expertise to comment on plant naming issues but there may be some merit in Kalmia's move. Please consider the issue thoughtfully. Cedars 00:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. LuciferMorgan 02:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
