![]() | Adenanthos obovatus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 5, 2011. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Search yielded one article:
Title: Consistent individuality in the timing and magnitude of flowering by Adenanthos obovatus (Proteaceae) Author(s): Wooller RD, Wooller AJ Source: AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY Volume: 46 Issue: 5-6 Pages: 595-608 Published: 1998 Times Cited: 0
Will check and add soon (seeing which Adenanthos are closest to GAN... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Hesperian 00:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Australia. In The Dynamic Partnership. (Eds H. A. Ford and D. C. Paton.) pp. 2031. (Government Printer: South Australia.)
looks good to - love to see the fulltext of that. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Rejected intermedius:
text and
plate.
Hesperian
05:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
PS: Hesperian, you wanna do the distrib map or leave it to me? Happy either way. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The botanical illustration is Plée engrv. after Poit. according to the article on the book, hopefully that is accurate, is it worth noting here. cygnis insignis 02:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: J Milburn ( talk) 18:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Thanks for the work you've done in response to this review- the article's looking that little bit tidier now. I'm passing it- well done! J Milburn ( talk) 16:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Apparently Gardner was first to reject A. intermedius. Source is
Hesperian 12:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Description section go after Taxonomy? I'm not sure, but it's just something I've noticed in other taxa FAs... Auree ★ 01:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, there is a new stable template that I have placed on this talk page. The purpose of this template, as explained in the documentation and in a short discussion at the village pump, is to help against article rot (the deterioration of quality that can occur in articles), and to keep a link to a stable version, which will be reliable, and not so prone to those errors, vandalism, and erroneous information that can crop up at any moment. It has no effect on the actual article, and can be upgraded/changed at any time - ideally to reflect a newer, improved stable version. This being said, if you are against using it on this talk page (some have found it intrusive), feel free to discuss or remove it - I believe that it will benefit some articles more than others, and I accept that not all will see a need for it on each article. Falconus p t c 22:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Adenanthos obovatus. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | Adenanthos obovatus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 5, 2011. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Search yielded one article:
Title: Consistent individuality in the timing and magnitude of flowering by Adenanthos obovatus (Proteaceae) Author(s): Wooller RD, Wooller AJ Source: AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY Volume: 46 Issue: 5-6 Pages: 595-608 Published: 1998 Times Cited: 0
Will check and add soon (seeing which Adenanthos are closest to GAN... Casliber ( talk · contribs) 05:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Hesperian 00:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Australia. In The Dynamic Partnership. (Eds H. A. Ford and D. C. Paton.) pp. 2031. (Government Printer: South Australia.)
looks good to - love to see the fulltext of that. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 02:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Rejected intermedius:
text and
plate.
Hesperian
05:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
PS: Hesperian, you wanna do the distrib map or leave it to me? Happy either way. Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 13:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The botanical illustration is Plée engrv. after Poit. according to the article on the book, hopefully that is accurate, is it worth noting here. cygnis insignis 02:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: J Milburn ( talk) 18:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Thanks for the work you've done in response to this review- the article's looking that little bit tidier now. I'm passing it- well done! J Milburn ( talk) 16:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Apparently Gardner was first to reject A. intermedius. Source is
Hesperian 12:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Description section go after Taxonomy? I'm not sure, but it's just something I've noticed in other taxa FAs... Auree ★ 01:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi all, there is a new stable template that I have placed on this talk page. The purpose of this template, as explained in the documentation and in a short discussion at the village pump, is to help against article rot (the deterioration of quality that can occur in articles), and to keep a link to a stable version, which will be reliable, and not so prone to those errors, vandalism, and erroneous information that can crop up at any moment. It has no effect on the actual article, and can be upgraded/changed at any time - ideally to reflect a newer, improved stable version. This being said, if you are against using it on this talk page (some have found it intrusive), feel free to discuss or remove it - I believe that it will benefit some articles more than others, and I accept that not all will see a need for it on each article. Falconus p t c 22:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Adenanthos obovatus. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)