Talk:Dryandra Woodland National Park

message: ... as far as I can tell.  I gave it B class because it needs peer review, not mine. It is class A in my view.
* Nyungar section needs a little development.
* Great structure and scope in content. Like discussion of different uses by people.
* Strongly in favour of articles on country (bioregion?). They can outline a 'unity' of elements and create a portal for histories.  
Are there others like this?  What team of editors created and developed this? Just one!  Another great article by Moondyne.  Fred 17:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied on Fred's talk page. —Moondyne 08:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article

message: I checked each entry in the protected flora list against Florabase, and found a number of spelling errors, some species that had changed priority code, plus a few that had been declared taxonomic synonyms, and some that had been published (i.e. no longer ms). Chorizandra pinnatifida simply doesn't exist, and seeing as the next entry in the original list is Dryandra pinnatifida (i.e. same specific epithet) I'd say it is a typographical error in the original. What species was intended is irrelevant as no Chorizandra species appears on the priority list now. I couldn't find any mention of Schoenus aff. clandestinus either, but have left it be for now. Hesperian 12:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rare flora

message: From WP:WIAGA:
* Well written - Meets MOS requirements, clearly structured and flows well. Wording may need a third pair of (not glazed over like mine) eyes to go over it just to iron out small issues here and there - although I know I'm being harsh and judging the prose here to FA standard - but it's overall good to excellent. Not many articles of this type hold my interest from beginning to end!
* Factually accurate and verifiable - Pass. Extensively referenced from a mix of literature and Web resources with inline citations in all cases. Cite.php used for most, the ones it isn't used for appear fine to me.
* Broad - Very comprehensive (see NPOV). Pass.
* NPOV - Covers several different uses (per Fred), original inhabitants, forestry, conservation, tourism. Pass.
* Stable - Pass.
* Images - Good selection of images, all appropriately tagged. Pass.
Overall - excellent! I really hope this one can get to FA and that this feedback is useful. Orderinchaos78 04:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My review 

message: The radio trail broadcast is used as a reference here. This might be queried as a reliable source. While i have been unable to definitely determine the author of this information, it appears to be endorsed by the park manager, The WA government's department of conservation,is the author of the material. I would certainly rate this as reliable at GA, if not at FA. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio broadcast - a reliable source? 

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. It could probably be reworked somewhat to conform better with the manual of style guidelines for layout and list incorporation, but all in all it's a good article. Lampman (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dryandra Woodland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070921220806/http://www.naturebase.net/pdf/nature/management/dryandra.pdf to http://www.naturebase.net/pdf/nature/management/dryandra.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dryandra Woodland. 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/20070921220806/http://www.naturebase.net/pdf/nature/management/dryandra.pdf to http://www.naturebase.net/pdf/nature/management/dryandra.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I was editing Dryandra Woodland a few days ago and added it’s Noongar name as alt_name into the infobox, so it shows in the top (as “Noongar: Wilgadjny”). At the same time I noticed that Canning River and Swan River show their Noongar names in the infobox under “Native name” as “Nyungar: Djarlgarra”.
Can I please ask which may be preferred by Noongar, and if there are any objections to making at least these three pages use the same scheme? Betterkeks (talk) 02:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I was persuaded to start using Noongar, but I'll provide some source you are interested. cygnis insignis 11:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noongar name