# Talk:Aquilegia paui

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aquilegia paui/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Pbritti (talk · contribs) 02:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: ZKevinTheCat (talk · contribs) 11:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Beginning the GA review.—ZKevinTheCat


### Review
The article is mostly good, but there are some issues I spotted:

The total area covered by each subpopulation combined measures less than 1 km (0.62 mi). These are not the correct units. kilometers measure distance, not area, so this statement doesn't really make sense.
 Done. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
The caption in the last image reads Construction on the mountain is thought to have damaged two A. paui subpopulations. But in the text it says The study suggested that construction of telecommunication facilities on Mont Caro may have been responsible for the drop in plants in one subpopulation
 Done. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Aquilegia viscosa is apparently a synonym of A. einseleana, so this should probably be changed/clarified in the article (in taxonomy sect.).
Aquilegia viscosa was, as Enio Nardi put it, once a controversial species. It is now an accepted species by POWO and other major authors on the genus. The accepted form of A. viscosa is whats discussed in this article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
Spot check
[9] - good [15] - good[7] - good 
I've also merged some paragraphs in the description section that talked about similar topics, fixed a few typos and tweaked the wording in some spots. These are mostly just personal preferences (except typos obv.), so you can change them if you like.
——————————————————————————————————
Alright, looks good. About the wording and such, they are mainly just nitpicks and it isn't anything you would need to worry about in terms of GA status. I think we're done here. Good work. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC)