Talk:Crucibulum laeve/GA1

GA Review

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

Note: this review was for Crucibulum laeve, which was merged with Crucibulum, so the review is indexed from Talk:Crucibulum. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. I have a few comments which I will leave below. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• You have circumpolar wikilinked but it goes to a disambig page that is not helpful in explaining what you mean.

I checked the original source to make sure, and they basically meant widely distributed around the world except for tropical regions, so I just switched "circumpolar" to "widespread". Sasata (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wikilinks should occur at the first mention of the term, and then repeated if you feel it is necessary later in the article. For example, fruiting body is not wikilinked in the lead, but is somewhere in the body.'

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• This is a very good article, but it is a very complex read for the general reader. I think there should be more context for the terms in the text, especially as the wikilinks go to complexly-worded articles. So much use of technical terms without explanation is WP:JARGON and violates a GA requirement.

I went through the article again and made numerous changes which I hope makes it more user-friendly; let me know if there's anything else you feel needs tweaking. Thanks for another review! Sasata (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

—Mattisse (Talk) 00:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

This is a fascinating article, but it is still way too filled with jargon. If you could expand the article some to include an explanation of the jargon, the reader would benefit immensely. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I got the impression from your edits that it was largely the "Lifestyle" section that was the problem, so this section has now been expanded to include description of more basic fungal biology. Are there any other sections you think need more help? Sasata (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I can edit only the sections that I semi-understand. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Does the "Lifecycle" section read better? What are the other sections you want me to work on? Sasata (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is much better. I think the article is fine now. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): The editor has worked to make this technical article accessible b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): The sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Covers major relevant areas b (focused): Remains focused on topic

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

   Wonderful illustrations.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

A fascinating article. Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)