Jump to content

Talk:Boletopsis nothofagi/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Seppi333 (talk · contribs) 02:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

References

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Discussion

[edit]

I have a quick question about the citation convention used; I'm assuming this is the case, but do the citations at the end of each paragraph cover all the content in the paragraph? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seppi, thanks for taking on this review. Yes, the end-of-paragraph citations use fairly broad page ranges and cover all the material in the paragraph. I could have made them a bit tighter and more frequent, but don't strictly think it necessary in this case as it should be pretty easy for the reader to verify info from the paper. Sasata (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead, would you be willing clarify what the term hymenophore means using parentheses or comma separation? As a mycology layman, I had no clue what that was without looking it up, but everything else I understood. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 18:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sasata (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Also, I just made a minor cosmetic change with the placement of 1 image. Please feel free to revert it to the previous state if there's any problems that my edit may have caused. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) The text is well written.
    The only marginally relevant issue is the use of "is considered" in the lead, since that's a weasel word which may be tagged[weasel words] by another editor.
    I know from having read through Cooper & Leonard that the associated text is referenced in that citation, so it's not actually a weasel term or an issue in this review.
    I thought it might be worth pointing out though.    		 Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) I'm impressed by your attention to detail
    I couldn't find one thing wrong related to MOS.    		 Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Fully referenced, per discussion. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The cited source is a professional text. Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) All spot checks of the Cooper & Leonard ref satisfied WP:V.
    Didn't notice any issues with close-paraphrasing either.    		 Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Based upon the professional academic refs cited an a google search, this criteria has been met. Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) Same reasoning as above. Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    Seems neutral after a read-through.
    Kind of hard to be POV about a mushroom anyway     		Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Notes Result
    Obviously - 1 recent editor Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) Images are tagged as either CC-BY-SA-3.0 and CC-BY-3.0 Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) Missing alts, but that's not required
    Good captions    		 Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass A solid GA. Well written with perfect MOS-compliance (well in excess of GA criteria requirements) as far as I can tell.
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kindly for your helpful review Seppi. I've removed "is considered" from the text per your suggestions. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boletopsis_nothofagi/GA1&oldid=1136572710"