# Talk:Tephrosia purpurea

It seems to me that the page should possibly be moved to have a title that is the same as the first word of the article.  This page would then redirect there, and would make this article more accessible. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion! I just moved it from Tephrosia purpurea to Auhuhu. If you've got any more suggestions, I'm pretty inexperienced, so I'll be happy to listen. Indeterminate 05:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Per WP:NC (flora), the article should be titled at the species name. --Rkitko (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tephrosia apollinea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 16:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll take this as requested. Be prepared for the world's fastest GA review!! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
It is well referenced.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Initial comments
#### Lead
Just to clear something up (this is not an issue with the article itself): "found in the Middle East in areas such as Egypt and Sudan, Yemen, Oman and the United Arab Emirates" - the Middle East is a region or area, but Egypt, Sudan, Yemen and so on are countries?
The lead complies per WP:LEAD and the GA criteria. The above question isn't really a concern!


#### Description
Honestly I see no problems here. The prose is excellent and there are no points to make - references are in the correct places so this section meets the GA criteria.


#### Toxicity
Again - nothing. Every reference is correct and well placed. Prose is excellent and is GA-standard.


### Close - promoted
You know, for a plant it is as comprehensive as it can possibly be. I'm very impressed by the number of reference this has for such a small article, and because it is such a small article there are no copyediting issues at all (something which I only focus on). I'll promote this immaterially. Tephrosia apollinea has made history as one of the shortest Good Articles out there (and probably not to mention one of the shortest GARs)! Well done on all the work! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 16:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"cosmetic preparations" (pdf) = 404
--H3rmsn (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Link removed; external links shouldn't be linked in the article body anyway. Plantdrew (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tephrosia purpurea. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702122410/http://www2.bishopmuseum.org/ethnobotanydb/resultsdetailed.asp?search=auhuhu to http://www2.bishopmuseum.org/ethnobotanydb/resultsdetailed.asp?search=auhuhu
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

T. apollinea is now treated as a ssp. of T. purpurea by PoWO, WFO, and CoL (ILDIS is no longer available, but it was feeding info to CoL before its search engine expired). Tropicos lists both names, without stating which one is accepted.
The taxonomy has been discussed at Tephrosia apollinea before (in 2014) but should now be reviewed. Loopy30 (talk) 22:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
 Done Loopy30 (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)