Talk:Caloscypha/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. Just a few nitpicks:

  • "Prior to this, it had since 1968 been situated in the Pyronemaceae family ..." - this seems a bit clunky.
  • Have recast the sentence. Sasata (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I cannot make sense out of the image in the infobox. What is going on with it? The other image looks like a cup.
  • I've switched things around so that the taxobox image is a classic cup-shape, while the other pic, which shows an older ripped or bruised specimen, has been moved further down with an explanatory caption. Sasata (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • One of your sources says that diseased seeds fail to germinate,[1] but you only say this indirectly: "a possible cause for seed plants sown in local nurseries failing to germinate."
Have rewritten the sentence to more accurately reflect what the source says. Sasata (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Since it is such a short article, perhaps you could be a little less terse in your descriptions, although the wikilinks to do a good job of explaining.
I added a bit more explanatory prose to introduce the section on the imperfect state, and tweaked the prose elsewhere. Also added a mycomorphbox, and a bit more info about the derivation of the genus and species names. Sasata (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse (Talk) 22:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  • The additions did improve the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): Clear and concise prose b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): Major aspects covered b (focused): Focused on topic
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: Neutral
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.: Stable
  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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: Pass

Congratulations!

Mattisse (Talk) 16:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)