Talk:Sophora microphylla

Nominator: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 09:30, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

GA review

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

Reviewer: RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk · contribs) 12:53, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this as part of the GA circle. Review to come later today! RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

@RandomEditsForWhenIRemember: Reminder ping. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 03:20, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Prose : I haven't used the usual template here, and as in honestly I think this page is ready to go through on prose, there isn't much to quibble over here. Flows quite well, matches the style of other GA trees, and nothing really stands out as trimmable. As such, I've a few suggestions but nothing too major.

• As someone unfamiliar with tree terms, it would be good to add an explanation or wikilink when you say the branches are "weeping". (I'm familiar with a Weeping tree so I'm presuming it's a branch characteristic of that)

Correct.

• The terms brevideciduous and semideciduous refer to plants that lose their leaves, either entirely for a very brief period or partially, respectively This is good to include but better suited to a note.

I'd perfer to have it in prose. MOS:NOFORCELINK

• The only paragraph I struggled with was Ecology's second paragraph. At the moment it's mostly a series of "The [bird/insect] X" which was very repetitive. Trying to rewrite this so there's more variation in sentence length and sentence beginning would be a big improvement. This does pop up in the Description's third paragraph too but I think that is fine because ultimately that's a series of dry measurements.

Fixed.

Pictures: All look to be correctly marked and licensed. Alt text is always appreciated - I would probably change the Trunk shot's alt to just 'refer to caption' as they're basically identical sentences currently. First paragraph is a little squished due to the infobox/picture combo, which might come up if this was taken to FA level, but is fine for GA.

Refs: I took about 40% at random to verify.

1. Unfortunately while marked as such, "Heenan, De Lange & Wilton 2001" wasn't freely available to me at the link given, though I found an alternative here, so the access tag should be updated. Still, info was verified.

The journal moved to Wiley this year, the alternative publisher is no longer endorsed by them.

3. Good.

5. Good.

8. Good.

9. Good.

18. Good.

21. Good.

24. Good, although in my copy I couldn't check the page number.

25. Good.

26. Good.

29. Good.

32. Good. (same access point as 1)

33. Good. (You could point the reference for the Winter Leaf references here)

37. Good.

38. Good.

So the ref check easily passes. As such, it's just the pose comments I raised that need to have a look at before this gets a pass. RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@RandomEditsForWhenIRemember:  Done. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 01:05, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. The ecology paragraph looks better to me, so I think this is good to go. Nice job! RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2026 (UTC)