Talk:Cyathus/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
just a few rough spots, including one I have no clue how to fix.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
the sizes.com ref is suspect and you should probably get a citation for one section, but neither are facts that are controversial enough to cause problems at GA. FAC would be a different matter.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
not being a fungus type person, I'm going to take it on faith that it covers everything a fungus can cover. Certainly it covers description, history of classification, uses, and biology well enough.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Very NPOV (although I'm pretty sure that most fungi are NPOV!)
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Specific concerns

What makes http://www.sizes.com/units/cyathus.htm a reliable source? (It's not enough to hold back GA status, but it's probably not a reliable source. Suggest finding a book ref for the Greek term.)

Have changed it to the Brodie reference. Sasata (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the book you're using is called "Bird's Nest Fungi" .. is this genus usually known as that? If so, probably should be mentioned in the article.

The whole family are the bird's nest fungi. Have clarified in the lead. Sasata (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll probably want a citation for the last half of the first paragraph of Description.

Done. Sasata (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing word (I have NO clue what it might be..) in the first sentence of the second paragraph of Peridiole ... "Peridioles are often (missing) to the fruiting body by ..."

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth sentence of Biodegredation "These enzymes have potential application not only in the pulp and paper industry, and also to increase the digestibility and protein content of forage for cattle." is awkward. Suggest "These enzymes have potential applications not only in the pulp and paper industry, but also to increase the digestibility and protein content of forage for cattle."

Changed. Sasata (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting read, and I even understood most of it, which was vaguely frightening. Good job of mostly keeping it from being too jargon heavy.

Thanks, I'm glad it was readible. That's a main concern for me, as I plan to take this to FAC. Sasata (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]