Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Commencing GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 16:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There are a lot of images that are squeezed into this article - it makes the article look very clunky and can impede the flow of reading. I have there taken the liberty of creating a gallery and taking some images from the article and placing them in there. Please reverse if you wish, but I would council against re-including all the images back into the article proper. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 17:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reverted the addition of the gallery. Galleries are clunky and are discouraged (WP:IG). The images did need a bit of work, but I think that images near the prose that discusses them helps more than having them in a gallery at the end of the article. There are a few that have odd placements (a general photo of a sundew in the roots section? Wouldn't it be better to just have a photo of their root systems here?), so I'll take another look and make some replacements, probably requiring me to take some new images. I need to repot some of my Drosera anyway, so I'll snap a photo of the roots. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have no problem with that.... I didn't really like the gallery option, but I didn't feel qualified to determine which images were of "lesser" importance and should be moved out - and I wanted to make sure all the images were kept and not forgtten. I was hoping someone would come along and be able to make better adjustments. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 03:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

((Multiple image)) is sometimes useful when having difficulty accommodating all of the images in an article, as long as it isn't used for too many images (in which case one just ends up with a defacto gallery, and WP:IG issues arise). Good luck. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The tag-on sentences concluding some of the sections could really do with expansion. I do not feel this violates GA criteria, but it should be addressed.

• There has been a little bit of overlinking which I have reduced per WP:OVERLINK. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 17:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   • Well written.

   b (MoS):

   • Conforms to manual of style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • Well referenced.

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • Citations are to third party publications.

   c (OR):

   • No evidence of OR.

3. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects):

   • Addresses major aspect of article subject matter.

   b (focused):

   • Remains focused. No digressions.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy:

   • No issues concerning POV evident.

5. It is stable:

   • No edit wars etc.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):

   • Images are properly tagged and justified.

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • Images are accompanied by contextual captions.

7. Overall:

   Keep/Delist: KEEP ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 17:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]