Wikipedia:Peer review/Fungi in art/archive1

Fungi in art edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because…

I am seeking for help to improve this page. Any kind of comments or review is welcome, really. Even better if other editors feel like going directly to the page and edit it. As background information: I nominated the page for GA and received robust feedback, which I believe I went through point by point. In particular, I focussed the topic of page, removed what sounded like original research, and specified the sources better. I don't think nominating the page for GA again will be high on my priorities, but perhaps helping removing the clean-up banners on top of the page would be helpful. user:TompaDompa spent quite some time on this and I appreciate a lot the efforts.

Thanks, CorradoNai (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging TompaDompa here (does that work?) - Thanks, CorradoNai (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first ping worked, the second didn't. The way to get a ping to work is to link to an editor's user page in your comment, either directly (i.e. User:UserNameGoesHere) or using a template such as {{u}} or {{ping}}, and sign your comment with the same edit. If you add the mention and your signature with different edits, it won't work (probably the most common reason pings don't work). Further details about this can be found at WP:MENTION. Alternatively, you can link to an editor's user page in your edit summary (as I did with this edit). Anyway, I'll try to find the time take a look at this, but I'm working on a bunch of other things at the moment and can't make any promises. TompaDompa (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720 edit

Some thoughts about the article after a quick skim:

Add citations to everywhere that says "citation needed". There should also be a citation at the end of every paragraph that verifies the information before it.
Bullet point lists are usually not needed and can be removed or written as prose. Multiple examples are not usually necessary, and only the most important ones should be included. Typically, if the example does not have a Wikipedia article, I do not include it.
You can verify any information where it says "verification needed" If the source says the information that preceeds it, you can remove the tag. If not, the information should be reworded to fit the source, a new source should be found, or the information deleted.
The article suffers from WP:OVERSECTION with some sections containing one paragraph. These should be expanded upon or merged with other sections.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]