Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banksia brownii

Banksia brownii[edit]

There is no single published source with more information about this particular species of Banksia. Every published source to some extent has been utilised to compile this article. Gnangarra 07:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fully-formed and meets all criteria. One more lead paragraph might be advisable, if possible, but that is minor. Outriggr 09:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as co-nominator. Snottygobble 11:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as 2nd co-nominator (well, I didn't do that much editing but I did take the photos :).Cas Liber 11:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support for a well written, comprehensive, and properly referenced article which, if the nominator is correct has now become an important reference source. Also, its the right length and has nice clear photos. I can't think what could be done to improve it. Well done editors. -- I@n 12:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Mild object~~ Agree with Outriggr, lead should have another, even if short, para. Fixed minor formatting for you.Rlevse 13:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the edits, I'll work on the lead. Gnangarra 13:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it has been expanded as requested. Snottygobble 02:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong support now, changed my vote. Rlevse 09:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~if the lead is extended beyond one paragraph~~. violet/riga (t) 14:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it has been expanded as requested. Snottygobble 02:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The lead is too short. It should be at least 2 paragraphs long. CG 16:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it has been expanded as requested. Snottygobble 02:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, lots of work has been done to make this a very comprehensive and well written article. I disagree with the lead coments, for the length of the article the lead is the right size (according to WP:LEAD and to fit in the box on the main page), the only thing that could be added would be the average height of the bush, that there are two forms and when in flowers (if its seasonal or induces by some other factors).--Peta 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote WP:LEAD: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article..." – it is on that where it falls down for me. violet/riga (t) 23:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks, it has been expanded as requested. Snottygobble 02:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The lead has been expanded as requested. Gnangarra 02:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent article. Rebecca 03:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Everyking 03:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice. I am curious, however, in the conservation section mention is made of all threats the species faces (which seem considerable) but little of the conservation actually being undertaken; it's kinda tucked away in the disease section - is this all that is being done? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately yes, there is no specific action to protect this species only the general ations taken to protect the regions as a whole. Gnangarra 07:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pity, if perhaps unsurprising. It might be worth mentioning that in the article. Otherwise, excellent work! Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The conservation section does mention legislative measures. I will also think about how to insert a mention of the fact that the Stirling Range populations are afforded further protection by the fact that they occur within the Stirling Range National Park. Snottygobble 02:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. Snottygobble 11:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the ToC is lopsided as it has a L3 heading; I suggest you promote =Conservation= to a L1 heading and the other two to a L2 heading. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Snottygobble 02:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A good job well done. (BTW, I just corrected the spelling for two words in the article, "unforeseen" and "extreme".) --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers! Snottygobble 02:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent, very clear, well-written, well-referenced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support great work.--cj | talk 17:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support.Blnguyen | rant-line 05:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support very impressive!! It's always good when the best resource on a particular subject is Wikipedia! -- Samir धर्म 08:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]