| Toolbox |
|---|
 | This peer review discussion is closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm preparing it for a Good Article review. I think it's close, but a big problem with this type of article is always the technicality and readability of it. Most of the content comes from the description of the species, which is very difficult to write in a way which is accessible for a layperson. I recently got another very similar article promoted to GA over at Hypericum sechmenii, so this article should end up looking pretty much like that one. I'm just hoping to get a second pair of eyes ahead of the GAN to help make that process a bit smoother and quicker than for H. sechmenii. I'm happy to do some quid pro quo and review your article if you're willing to leave a few pieces of constructive criticism.
Thanks, Fritzmann (message me) 01:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm gonna go on a limb and say that you don't nessesarily have to make it as accessible for a layperson, that's what simple wikipedia is for, plus learning the nessesary jargon is good practise for any layperson who wants to get into a field. It looks great by the way and if you need a cladogram I'd be happy to make one for you. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)