Talk:Dryandra Woodland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Dryandra Woodland has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Flag
Portal
 Dryandra Woodland is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia.
Assessment comments

[edit] Good article

... as far as I can tell. I gave it B class because it needs peer review, not mine. It is class A in my view.

  • Nyungar section needs a little development.
  • Great structure and scope in content. Like discussion of different uses by people.
  • Strongly in favour of articles on country (bioregion?). They can outline a 'unity' of elements and create a portal for histories.

Are there others like this? What team of editors created and developed this? Just one! Another great article by Moondyne. Fred 17:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied on Fred's talk page. —Moondyne 08:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Rare flora

I checked each entry in the protected flora list against Florabase, and found a number of spelling errors, some species that had changed priority code, plus a few that had been declared taxonomic synonyms, and some that had been published (i.e. no longer ms). Chorizandra pinnatifida simply doesn't exist, and seeing as the next entry in the original list is Dryandra pinnatifida (i.e. same specific epithet) I'd say it is a typographical error in the original. What species was intended is irrelevant as no Chorizandra species appears on the priority list now. I couldn't find any mention of Schoenus aff. clandestinus either, but have left it be for now. Hesperian 12:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My review

From WP:WIAGA:

  • Well written - Meets MOS requirements, clearly structured and flows well. Wording may need a third pair of (not glazed over like mine) eyes to go over it just to iron out small issues here and there - although I know I'm being harsh and judging the prose here to FA standard - but it's overall good to excellent. Not many articles of this type hold my interest from beginning to end!
  • Factually accurate and verifiable - Pass. Extensively referenced from a mix of literature and Web resources with inline citations in all cases. Cite.php used for most, the ones it isn't used for appear fine to me.
  • Broad - Very comprehensive (see NPOV). Pass.
  • NPOV - Covers several different uses (per Fred), original inhabitants, forestry, conservation, tourism. Pass.
  • Stable - Pass.
  • Images - Good selection of images, all appropriately tagged. Pass.

Overall - excellent! I really hope this one can get to FA and that this feedback is useful. Orderinchaos78 04:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)