Talk:John Fraser (botanist)
Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | John Fraser (botanist) was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 5, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Scottish botanist John Fraser was a plant collector for Catherine, Czar of Russia? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:John Fraser (botanist)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | The prose style needs to be simplified; for example "expectation of recompense", "quit the mercantile counter", "resorting to seeking assistance". |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | lead: is too short. Please extend it to summarize the sections of the article. It would be best to avoid refs in the lead (not a show-stopper). layout: ok. weasel: ok. fiction: n/a. lists: n/a. |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | no problem. |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | fully cited. |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | Family tree does feel OR-ish. |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Seems well covered. |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Not sure family tree is necessary - parents and children generally sufficient. There's already a sentence on John Jr, so suggest the rest should go. |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ok, removed an adjective. |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | not an issue. |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All images from Commons. |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Yes, they illustrate the article well. Have clarified a couple of captions. |
|
7. Overall assessment. | |
Been a month with no progress, so closing this. Wizardman 16:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on John Fraser (botanist). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://john-fraser.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=0&Itemid=9
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://john-fraser.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1&Itemid=1
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pitlochry.org.uk/garden9.php
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www2.brit.org/fileadmin/Publications/Sida_22_2_/25_Ward-Thomas-Walter_1111-1118.pdf - Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120072639/http://www.bartramtrail.org/pages/explor.html to http://www.bartramtrail.org/pages/explor.html
- Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www.brit.org/sites/default/files/public/BRIT%20Press/JBRIT5%281%29/205-211_Ward_Beckner_WaltersOrchids_JBRIT5%281%29205-211_24.pdf - Added
{{dead link}}tag to http://www2.brit.org/fileadmin/Publications/JBotResInstTexas_4_2/705-710_Ward_Hedysarum_JBRIT_4_2__19.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)