Talk:Crucibulum (fungus)/GA1
Appearance
(Redirected from Talk:Crucibulum/GA1)
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This is quite a wonderful article. Before passing it in GA review, I have two comments:
- Since you mention the "peridiole" in the lede, you should explain what it is there, and at the first mention in the article.
- Have now explicitly associated peridioles with the "eggs" in the lead. Sasata (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- You might want to add alt text to the images.
- Done. Sasata (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- But "peridiole" is not explained in the lede, or wikilinked. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- "The "eggs" of the bird's nests (technically known as peridioles) are hard waxy shells containing spores..." (no wikilink possible yet, haven't made that article) Sasata (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- So in the drawing "Cross section of C. laeve fruiting bodies in various stages of development", those are the "eggs" inside the peridioles, or what? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe the confusion is from the similar-sounding word peridium? The peridium is the fruiting body (the "nest"), the peridioles are the disc-shaped structures (the "eggs") inside the peridium. Sasata (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Have changed "The "eggs" of the bird's nests" to "The "eggs" inside the bird's nests"... is that better? Sasata (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry! Maybe I am too tired. It is true that for the general reader, these articles are confusing. Is it correct now? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- So in the drawing "Cross section of C. laeve fruiting bodies in various stages of development", those are the "eggs" inside the peridioles, or what? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- "The "eggs" of the bird's nests (technically known as peridioles) are hard waxy shells containing spores..." (no wikilink possible yet, haven't made that article) Sasata (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Final GA review (see here for criteria)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): Concisely written b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS
- a (prose): Concisely written b (MoS): Follows relevant MoS
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
- a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): Covers major areas b (focused): Remains focused on topic
- a (major aspects): Covers major areas b (focused): Remains focused on topic
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias: Neutral
- Fair representation without bias: Neutral
- It is stable.
- No edit wars etc.: Stable
- No edit wars etc.: Stable
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail: Pass
- Pass/Fail: Pass
Another wonderful article. Congratulations!
—Mattisse (Talk) 00:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have notified you on your talk page that there is a potential problem in content overlap with Crucibulum laeve. Please resolve. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)