Revision as of 06:35, 29 December 2006 editCirceus (talk | contribs)Administrators50,233 edits →GA review: explain← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:19, 29 December 2006 edit undoShimeru (talk | contribs)7,192 editsm GANext edit → | ||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{GA}} | |||
{{GAonhold|14 December 2006}} | |||
{{peerreview}} | {{peerreview}} | ||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
:The DOI is for an article I still need to integrate the content of in the article, I have been kept from working on this by various things, and will try to do it (and the overlinking thing) ASAP. I'm a terribly slow worker on my articles, I'm afraid.] 06:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | :The DOI is for an article I still need to integrate the content of in the article, I have been kept from working on this by various things, and will try to do it (and the overlinking thing) ASAP. I'm a terribly slow worker on my articles, I'm afraid.] 06:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
::Okay, thanks for the quick response. I'll leave it on hold, with a note. ] 06:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Good Article== | |||
Excellent work. I feel this meets all of the Good Article criteria, and I'm happy to promote it. Congratulations, and thanks for all your hard work. ] 19:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:19, 29 December 2006
Verbascum thapsus has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}. |
Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically. |
Are you sure that common names should be in bold with in the body of the text? This plant is a common "weed" naturalized in north America and other parts of the world were it is a pest species in grain and hay fields. You just have to visit a few farms to see that it grows in the fields, were it can interfere with harvesting due to its thick hard stalks. Since its a biennial tilling tends to remove it but in fields that are not tilled heavily it persists to flower. Hardyplants 14:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the Mullien page be merged into Common Mullein. 'Mullien' is just a misspelling of mullein. DavidCooke 04:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Actually much of it might be better merged with Mullein. Although the text starts with Verbascum thapsus, most of the article seems non-specific to the individual species and later mentions white mullien which would appear to be V. lychnitis. -- Solipsist 10:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the redirect should obviously be to Mullein, but I'm not familiar enough with the entire genre to know what article the information is best merged with. Circeus 16:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Definitely merge the 'Mullien' to Common Mullein. I agree it's an obvious misspelling. As an herbalist whose favorite plant is CM, the Common Mullein article here is excellent. Thank you.Berrymoon 15:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
GA comments
This article is way over-linked. It makes it difficult to read. Does "decades" really have to have a link? Is every link necessary? KP Botany 18:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've tried to address to address that alongside User:choess comments. Circeus 20:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
GA review
- Well written:
- Compelling prose: In the third paragraph of "Morphology", try to rewrite so that two sentences in succession do not start with "The flowers are". The first sentence of "Cultivation and naturalisation" should read "a naturalised weed in North America...". In "Agricultural impacts and control", the phrase "A study found V. thapsus to host" would probably read better without the infinitive: "A study found that V. thapsus hosts". Just below, the meaning of "specific feeders" is unclear: specific to the species? The genus? In the first paragraph of "Medical use", "that as transmitted" should read "that was transmitted". In the second paragraph, "external conditions" would, IMO, read better than "external problems". "was recommended against" should perhaps read "was recommended for treating". "found Mullein...to contain" would, as aforementioned, read better without the infinitive. On the other hand, "as containing" should read "to contain". Below, "common" is misspelled, and "transferred on" should be "transferred to". In "Other uses", "as being able" should just read "to". In the second paragraph, "with warmth keeping" should be rephrased "keep them warm" or simply "insulate them".
- Should be all taken care of. Fixed a few extra wording and grammar issues along the line.
- Logical structure: Perhaps "Life Cycle" should be a first-level, rather than a second-level heading? Also, the bit about "Gordolobo" is a bit problematic. Gnaphalium conoideum and Senecio longilobus are both similar in leaf appearance, but V. thapsus doesn't really resemble them. According to the source cited, they seem to have been confused, somewhat inexplicably, by an early Spanish botanist. This should be rewritten to more accurately conform to the events described in the source.
- I've restored my original structure, where "life cycle" and "agricultural impacts" were under "ecological aspects". The new one (by User:MPF) had a few other things I wasn't happy with (such as sections with a single subheaders. Gordolobo bit rewritten.
- MoS: Please use en-dashes instead of hyphens when expressing a range of numbers.
- done
- Jargon explained: yes, but as the previous comment observed, the article is somewhat over-linked. Common nouns such as "leaf", "flower", "autumn", "insect", etc. should probably not be linked; linking should be restricted to proper nouns and more technical terms, such as "biennial", "rosette", and "taproot". Also, words should only be linked once: the first link to "weed" is probably OK, but the term should not thereafter be linked.
- tried to remove as many as I could.
- Compelling prose: In the third paragraph of "Morphology", try to rewrite so that two sentences in succession do not start with "The flowers are". The first sentence of "Cultivation and naturalisation" should read "a naturalised weed in North America...". In "Agricultural impacts and control", the phrase "A study found V. thapsus to host" would probably read better without the infinitive: "A study found that V. thapsus hosts". Just below, the meaning of "specific feeders" is unclear: specific to the species? The genus? In the first paragraph of "Medical use", "that as transmitted" should read "that was transmitted". In the second paragraph, "external conditions" would, IMO, read better than "external problems". "was recommended against" should perhaps read "was recommended for treating". "found Mullein...to contain" would, as aforementioned, read better without the infinitive. On the other hand, "as containing" should read "to contain". Below, "common" is misspelled, and "transferred on" should be "transferred to". In "Other uses", "as being able" should just read "to". In the second paragraph, "with warmth keeping" should be rephrased "keep them warm" or simply "insulate them".
- Accurate and verifiable:
- Referenced: Excellently so.
- Inline citations: in profusion
- Reliable sources: all sources appear to be reliable
- NOR: None apparent.
- Broad in coverage:
- Addresses all major aspects: as far as I can tell. Covers morphology, reproduction and ecology, impact on agriculture, and human uses.
- Focused on main topic: Yes.
- NPOV: not really an issue with Mullein, happily.
- Stable: appears so.
- Images:
- Tagged and captioned: the picture in the taxobox should be captioned.
- Done
- Non-free or fair use rationale: OK.
- Tagged and captioned: the picture in the taxobox should be captioned.
Please address these issues and I would be happy to examine it again and probably approve it for GA. Choess 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- *Checks "address GA comments" on to-do list.*
- Oh, however, all these "done" refers not to the article, but to the version at User:Circeus/Verbascum, which is still being worked on to include extra material I've discovered in the meantime. Circeus 21:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It seems Choess has been absent for the past week or so. I see you still haven't copied over your rewrite. Do you have any idea how much more time you'll need to work on it? I don't want to fail it while you're working to address complaints, especially since your initial reviewer hasn't been around for further feedback, but it's already a week past the time the hold period should have expired.
I don't see any major issues with the rewrite, but:
- There's still some overlinking -- goats, chickens, sand, gravel? Common terms shouldn't be linked unless they're of particular relevance. (For instance, "seed" is directly relevant when talking about a plant.)
- Web references should all have a "retrieved on" date and follow a consistent format. The DOI at the end of the section appears out of place, too.
Very minor, and should require very little time. If you're not finished expanding it, however, and you plan to be a while, it might be better to remove it and renominate it once the work is complete. Shimeru 05:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- The DOI is for an article I still need to integrate the content of in the article, I have been kept from working on this by various things, and will try to do it (and the overlinking thing) ASAP. I'm a terribly slow worker on my articles, I'm afraid.Circeus 06:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for the quick response. I'll leave it on hold, with a note. Shimeru 06:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Good Article
Excellent work. I feel this meets all of the Good Article criteria, and I'm happy to promote it. Congratulations, and thanks for all your hard work. Shimeru 19:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Categories: