Talk:Notothlaspi australe

Notothlaspi australe was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 14, 2025, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants Low‑importance Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. New Zealand Low‑importance New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Notothlaspi australe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Richlitt (talk · contribs) 22:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 22:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I'm going to have to fail this - the article doesn't hit the breadth criteria at the moment. I'd advise looking at Veronica jovellanoides for an example of a current New Zealand botanical Good Article, and use that as a guideline for the level of detail generally seen at a GA level. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:47, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some current issues, besides the brevity:

• Etymology and Conservation are uncited, as are two sentences in Description.
• Range and habitat can be combined into a single section. In general, one paragraph sections and one sentence paragraphs should both be avoided; one sentence sections are definitely too short.
• Five citations in a row are definitely excessive; I don't think any are needed there, as it's in the lead paragraph.
• Taxonomy doesn't talk about its relation to the rest of Notothlaspi or Brassicaceae.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.