![]() | Human uses of plants has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 21, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Human uses of plants article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Plants in culture. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Icebob99 ( talk · contribs) 15:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'll be reviewing this article. I'll check it against the criteria and list some concerns that need to be met as well as a few of my suggestions that will be optional. Those two types of comments will be clearly separated from one another. Let's get to it!
Icebob99 (
talk)
15:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I should also note that I may make some of the changes myself. No need to list trivial improvements.
Alright, that finishes my concerns and suggestions. I'm fixing the one GA criteria concern myself; it would be petty to make someone else fix it. Going through the criteria one by one:
Closing commentary: I think this is an obvious pass. I fixed the one issue. Well-written article: I suggest taking this to FA pretty soon. Maybe add some more content just as a perfunctory measure between GA and FA, but that isn't required. Congratulations! This officially passes. Icebob99 ( talk) 16:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | Human uses of plants has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: December 21, 2016. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Human uses of plants article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Plants in culture. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Icebob99 ( talk · contribs) 15:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'll be reviewing this article. I'll check it against the criteria and list some concerns that need to be met as well as a few of my suggestions that will be optional. Those two types of comments will be clearly separated from one another. Let's get to it!
Icebob99 (
talk)
15:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I should also note that I may make some of the changes myself. No need to list trivial improvements.
Alright, that finishes my concerns and suggestions. I'm fixing the one GA criteria concern myself; it would be petty to make someone else fix it. Going through the criteria one by one:
Closing commentary: I think this is an obvious pass. I fixed the one issue. Well-written article: I suggest taking this to FA pretty soon. Maybe add some more content just as a perfunctory measure between GA and FA, but that isn't required. Congratulations! This officially passes. Icebob99 ( talk) 16:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)