Talk:Mutinus elegans/GA1

GA Review

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

I don't think this will be a massive task, but the usual quibbles will follow shortly Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~article is mainly in AE, but measurements are in BE "centimetres"~~

I've abbreviated all convert output now. Sasata (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~three "described" in first two sentences of taxonomy~~

Tweaked wording. Sasata (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't much care for the two tiny sections Microscopic features and Edibility''

I didn't care for them either, so I scraped up some more info to add to them. Sasata (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More tomorrow... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...continuing

hilar scar I assume hilar isn't short for hilarious, but a link or gloss is needed

I've worded the following sentence to make the definition more explicit. Sasata (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fetid odor of mature specimens would likely be repellent to most, but they are not considered poisonous suggest "although" rather than "but", since not contrastative. Also would likely sounds very informal to British ears, I'd prefer would probably if you can live with that.

I had to look that word up... I'm assuming you mean contrastive? Changed. The "would likely/probably" British nuance is interesting, I'll add it to my repertoire. I recently learned to use "autumn" in preference to "fall". Sasata (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fusiform ??

Now spindle-shaped. Sasata (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quercus acutissima, Zelkova serrata, Cinnamomum camphora. - not a big deal, but I wondered why you had gone for binomial rather than common names for the trees?

I just didn't think of it at the time :) Changed to common names. Sasata (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made this edit, please check

Looks good. Sasata (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this will go to FAC, you probably realise you'll need alt text for the images. The left-aligned image interferes with headings, but I'm not sure what you can do about that. I look forward to passing this soon Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I thought this article would be too thin for FAC material, as there's not a lot more additional information available out there. I did move the image up immediately under the section heading, so now the subheading is less likely to be right-pushed (although still dependent on the browser width). Sasata (talk) 07:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's do it

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):

Prose is well-written; article complies with MOS.

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):
Well-referenced to reliable sources. I checked a few random refs that were available on-line and they were fine.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Coverage is broad and thorough
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
All images have appropriate free use licenses.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Incidentally, I'd forgotten you did the GA for Alpine Chough - I really ought to think about throwing that to the FAC wolves. I left it earlier because my September trip to Nova Scotia would have disrupted it. Well done anyway, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think Alpine Chough would do well at FAC. Thanks kindly for the review! Sasata (talk) 06:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]