Talk:Postelsia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Postelsia has been listed as one of the Natural sciences 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.

[edit] GA feedback

Very nice, one concern is the two "possibly unfree" images, the only substantive improvement I can suggest is to echo AnonEMouse's comment from the peer review requesting some link or reference to the laws covering harvesting. Pete.Hurd 19:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Article has been on hold too long. GreenJoe 17:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I am concerned about the references. Can you find more references? It seems like the length of this article should contain more than just 4 references. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
There are few references as it is, as it is a very little known organism, and these four have it covered. I can go digging, if you like, though. Werothegreat 13:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images for page

taxobox - Sea palm pair 1.jpg Sea palm group 1.jpg|thumb|left|Group of sea palms at the Pillar Point Marine Reserve. Half Moon Bay, San Mateo.

currently in limbo while waiting for approval for use —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Werothegreat (talk • contribs) 21:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:


There's not much for me to comment for improvement. The article length and number of reference may be below the standard, but that's due to the fact that Postelsia is not a well known organism. After checking this article against the GA criteria, I believe that it has met all the criterias so the article will now receive GA class status. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)