Talk:Chorioactis/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. All in all, it is a good article. I did some copy editing and feel free to rectify any errors I made. I have just a few comments. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Since is is so rare I changed "commonly called" to 'with the common name of “Devil’s Cigar”', as that seemed more fitting with its rarity.

Agree, good idea. Sasata (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• The article rotates between using "fruiting body" and "apothecium". This is somewhat confusing to the general reader; it would be better to stick with one or the other (with one in parentheses at first mention).

Have switched to the more friendly term fruiting body. Sasata (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• "later opposed in publications by Heald and Wolf (1910) and Seaver (1928, 1942)" - it would help to explain who these writers are and/or why their opinion is important.

These are just other mycologists with their own opinions of how things should be categorized. I've added "later studies of the fungus" to help clarify the significance of their publications. Sasata (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Under "Microscopic characteristics", it is mentioned that "rather than tapering gradually like other members of the Pezizales order". I believe this is the first mention of the Pezizales order, so it is confusing. How does this fit in with the other classifications?

The Pezizales are a larger grouping of fungus to which this species belong; I've added a sentence to the lede to establish this (this is also in the taxobox). Sasata (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• The article says that in Japan its usual habitat is dead oak trees. What about in Texas? Is there any communality between the two locations where it is found?

Have clarified the difference between Texas and Japan tree hosts. Sasata (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, this is a fine article about a curious mushroom. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again Matisse! Sasata (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Clearly written b (MoS): Follows 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): Covers major areas b (focused): Remains focused on topic

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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:

Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 23:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)