Talk:Zombia/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll be reviewing this article. It will probably take me a couple of days. Sasata (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The article looks pretty good already. I took the liberty of doing a mild copyedit, wikilinking some relevant terms, and tweaking some text. Feel free to revert if you don't agree with the changes. Sasata (talk) 07:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Citations to the Henderson et al. (1995) book need specific page numbers. I recommend using a ref tag, and splitting up the references into "Footnotes" and "References" (as recommended by the MOS); the Henderson book will then be the single book in the "References" section. Or alternatively, just give the page range if it's sufficiently small and you won't have to bother with that.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):

   I compared the Econ. Bot. (2004) paper with what was written here and everything checked out.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   There appears to be a copyright issue with the taxobox picture (missing tag?). Personally, I'd like to see a photo of the plant, or its leaves, or its fruits in the article, but the taxobox picture would be sufficient.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Pending change to reference formatting, and resolution of copyright status for picture.

• Page numbers added for Henderson et al.
• Image issues fixed. (It was uploaded from Commons for use on the Main Page, and somehow wasn't entirely deleted. Anyway, I just deleted the local image, so it has reverted to the Commons image)
• Regarding images - what you (and readers of this article) really need to see are images of the persistent leaf-sheaths on the stem. That is really something to see. Still looking.
• Much thanks for the review. Guettarda (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Everything meets GA standards now, am promoting the article. Thanks for your contribution! Sasata (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)