Talk:Betula pubescens

Wood

The wood should be mentioned in the article. Badagnani (talk) 07:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources

It would be fully appreciated if all sources were given a publication date.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pax85 (talk · contribs) 23:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I will be working on this over the next few days. If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know! -Pax Verbum 23:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	All is good. I made a few minor copy edits, mostly for prose and clarity.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Please see below. The lead contains a fact (bread in times of famine) that I did not see in the main body. The lead has been improved to more accurately cover the article and all issues have been addressed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The list is present and in accordance with the style guidelines. I would, however, consider splitting it into columns as the list is getting long. Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Reference 11 (Govaerts) leads to a 404 error page on that site. The link itself is to the 404 page. All other sources check out. Link removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article is well–sourced.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyright issues were found.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I am not an expert on this topic, but it seems to clearly address the main points of the subject. However, some information in the "uses" section can be moved (see below). Coverage is broad yet concise.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article does not stray from the topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No POV issues found.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No major changes have been made since the GA nomination.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images are appropriate tagged and attributed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All images are on topic.
	7. Overall assessment.	All issues have been addressed and the article meets the GA criteria. I would, however, caution the lack of publication dates in some of the sources: if the article heads to FAC at a later date, those may be needed. The bot should be around shortly after I make the needed edits... -Pax Verbum 02:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

 Comment: My apologies for the delay. I am in the middle of moving back to the U.S. from Mexico, so things have been a bit...crazy. I hope to be done by the end of the weekend! -Pax Verbum 01:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, I had an unexpected chunk of free time! I have added additional comments and am placing the review on hold while they are addressed. Please let me know if you have any questions. This is on my watchlist, but it might be helpful to ping me if needed, or when you are done. Thank you! -Pax Verbum 02:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Issues

Items that need to be addressed before passing (suggestions not affecting the overall review can be found in the above table):

• Reference 11 leads to a 404 error page.

 Done by submitter. -Pax Verbum 02:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• The lead mentions using the inner bark for bread in times of famine, but this particular use is not mentioned in the article (although the making of bread is mentioned, just not using it in times of famine). This aspect of the lead can be improved to be more broad regarding the use of the inner bark. It doesn't have to be exhaustive, since it is the lead of course, but I think that it does need to be a bit wider, and the discrepancy about the famine use needs to be remedied.

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• The first two sentences under "uses" would be better suited in the distribution section. I am not sure how they relate to the "uses" of the downy birch.

@Pax85: Moved. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2016 (UTC)