Talk:Clavaria zollingeri/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Peter coxhead (talk · contribs) 09:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Excellent encyclopaedic style. I'm not sure what "The surfaces of the branches are smooth and dry, fragile;" is supposed to mean – the surfaces are presumably not fragile; does it mean the branches are fragile?  Done Fixed. "The fungus grows solitarily, in groups, or in clusters" – this seems contradictory; how can it be solitary and also in groups or clusters?  Done My mis-reading; added "either" to clarify how to parse the sentence.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Achieving a "clear, accessible style" in the lead for a specialized topic such as an article on a fungus species isn't easy. My interpretation of the MoS is that the lead should be more "accessible" than the body of the article. So for example I would reverse text like "basidiocarps (fruit bodies)" into "fruit bodies (basidiocarps)". At least put a brief explanation of "saprobic" after the use of this word; ideally put a gloss first. (I'm used to the botanical literature though not a "fungus person" and had to look up "saprobic" to check that it meant what I thought it did).  Done Lead improved.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Very clearly referenced; I have quickly checked most of those which are online and they clearly supported the information given. Good use of a wide range of sources, appropriate to a species with a worldwide distribution.
	2b. 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).	If anything it sometimes feels a bit over-provided with inline citations which can reduce readibility; I might have made more use of "end of paragraph collections".
	2c. it contains no original research.	Fine.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There's nothing on the position of the species within the genus. Consider cross-referencing to the phylogeny at Clavaria and perhaps very briefly saying something here.  Done New material added.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Fine.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Fine.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Fine.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Good images, but note that the second image violates MOS:IMAGES by sandwiching text between the image and the taxobox. Comment Doesn't sandwich badly; only happens with wide windows. MOS:IMAGES needs clarifying in this respect.
	7. Overall assessment.	All issues sorted.

Thank-you for your review. I'll address your points individually:

• 1a: I clarified that the branches are fragile. The second sentence parses ok to me–it's a list of the three ways the fruit bodies arrange themselves. I did, however, change "fungus" to the more accurate "fruit bodies". Hope this helps (but I'm open to other wordings).
• 1b: I used both of your suggestions to make the lead more accessible.
• 2b: What can I say, it's just my "style" :)
• 3a: Good points, and I hope my addition resolves this.
• 6b: There is no image sandwiching at the width I use for my browser window, but hopefully the increased length of the sections above the second image will reduce sandwiching on your screen. Sasata (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

All the issues I raised have been sorted, so I'm happy to say that this is a Good Article. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)