Talk:Boletopsis nothofagi

Post-translation efforts

The lead, Features (including Macroscopic features and Microscopic characteristics), Distribution and Ecology have been cleaned up to the best of my abilities. Systematics and Status still need effort. If anyone has the time to check my work on the areas I've cleaned up, I'd appreciate it. German is my third or fourth language and I would hesitate to call myself an expert on mycology. Although I'm pretty certain that my corrections are at least better than the machine-translation it replaced, I cannot guarantee that they are 100% correct, and I'm also fairly certain that at least some sentences can be phrased better than they are now. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Done on my side. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boletopsis nothofagi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seppi333 (talk · contribs) 02:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

References

Discussion

I have a quick question about the citation convention used; I'm assuming this is the case, but do the citations at the end of each paragraph cover all the content in the paragraph? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Seppi, thanks for taking on this review. Yes, the end-of-paragraph citations use fairly broad page ranges and cover all the material in the paragraph. I could have made them a bit tighter and more frequent, but don't strictly think it necessary in this case as it should be pretty easy for the reader to verify info from the paper. Sasata (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In the lead, would you be willing clarify what the term hymenophore means using parentheses or comma separation? As a mycology layman, I had no clue what that was without looking it up, but everything else I understood. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 18:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Sasata (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Also, I just made a minor cosmetic change with the placement of 1 image. Please feel free to revert it to the previous state if there's any problems that my edit may have caused. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 06:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	The text is well written. The only marginally relevant issue is the use of "is considered" in the lead, since that's a weasel word which may be tagged by another editor. I know from having read through Cooper & Leonard that the associated text is referenced in that citation, so it's not actually a weasel term or an issue in this review. I thought it might be worth pointing out though.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	I'm impressed by your attention to detail I couldn't find one thing wrong related to MOS.	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Fully referenced, per discussion.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	The cited source is a professional text.	Pass
(c) (original research)	All spot checks of the Cooper & Leonard ref satisfied WP:V. Didn't notice any issues with close-paraphrasing either.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Based upon the professional academic refs cited an a google search, this criteria has been met.	Pass
(b) (focused)	Same reasoning as above.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Seems neutral after a read-through. Kind of hard to be POV about a mushroom anyway	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Obviously - 1 recent editor	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	Images are tagged as either CC-BY-SA-3.0 and CC-BY-3.0	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	Missing alts, but that's not required Good captions	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	A solid GA. Well written with perfect MOS-compliance (well in excess of GA criteria requirements) as far as I can tell. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks kindly for your helpful review Seppi. I've removed "is considered" from the text per your suggestions. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 07:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Endangered

This is now classified as Endangered http://oldredlist.iucnredlist.org/details/80188388/0 Two native mushrooms now endangered. Radio New Zealand story on 7 May 2016 http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/303302/two-native-mushrooms-now-endangered links to the red list pages. Linnah (talk) 13:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, added info and citation to to infobox. Mattximus (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Boletopsis nothofagi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005093455/http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/concessions-and-permits/conservation-revealed/beech-forest-lowres.pdf to http://www.doc.govt.nz/documents/about-doc/concessions-and-permits/conservation-revealed/beech-forest-lowres.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)