Talk:Barbeyella minutissima

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 11:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article and will start in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

First reading

The article plunges straight in with the use of technical terms to describe the characteristics of the slime mould. I would like to see some background information as to what a slime mould is and how it functions before getting down to the intricate details. The article Physarum polycephalum provides much better background material. The other points I make below mostly concern sentence structure. I have not yet looked at other aspects of the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• "The hypothallus has a diameter of 0.7 mm and up and while not visible on mosses, is reddish brown on wood" - Although I can understand what this sentence means, it is not well expressed.
• "They are usually scattered, but also often grouped in loose,[2] large colonies" - This sentence structure could be improved.
• "Usually individual, occasionally in pairs, these are firmly fused with the lobed, segments of the peridium, which are round in cross-section; at spore maturity, the sporangium splits and empties into them towards the base." - Another over complex sentence, and to what does the "them" near the end refer?
• "This adhesion prevents the lobes of the peridium from detaching ..." - What adhesion?
• "The peridia are filled towards the top with plasmatic granulations ..." - Having learned earlier from a wikilink that the peridium is a protective layer that encloses a mass of spores, I find it difficult to visualise where these granulations are.
• "The mass of spores is blackish brown,[2] under polarised light brown." - This sentence structure could be improved.
• "They are generally textured in a warty manner, occasionally almost smooth and from 7 to 9 µm in diameter." - I don't much like this one either.
• "The species populates ..." - I find this to be a curious use of the verb "populate" which the dictionary defines as "cause people to settle in (a place)" or "fill or be present in (a place or sphere)".
• "It has been found growing on the liverwort ..." - The subject of the previous sentence was "wood".
• "In addition to mosses," - Have you not been talking of liverworts in the previous few sentences?
• "Additional Myxogastria species ... " - I would have thought "other" would have been a better word.

• Thanks or taking up the review Cwmhiraeth. I've worked on the prose concerns you listed above. Will need to think a bit more about how much background info to add; part of me thinks that some of the info in Physarum polycephalum is extraneous for a species article and is better left to the main parent article (Myxogastria) ... but maybe not ... Will deliberate and get back to you; looking forward to more comments. Sasata (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Inconclusive deliberations? Although I still think the article should provide some less technical background information, I could hardly argue that the scope is insufficiently broad. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• I reworked the prose a bit in the description section and glossed some jargon. Thanks again for the review. Sasata (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is satisfactory.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	It complies with the MOS guidelines.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	It does.
	2b. 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).	Sources are reputable and properly cited.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not as far as I can see.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Though I consider there is a lack of overview of the species, such information is often difficult to find at species level and otherwise, the main aspects are covered.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	It does
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No problem.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article was written in July and has been worked on by a small number of editors.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The single image was drawn in 1884 and is in the public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article meets the Good Article criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)