 | Calbovista has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 6, 2014. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Calbovista appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 July 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Calbovista/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 12:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I love the microscopic shots. A little bigger and they would really interesting FPC candidates. Review to follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- The lead's a little short, given the length of the article.
- Fleshed it out a bit. Sasata (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps "autumn" instead of "fall"? The latter isn't used in Britain or Ireland, and so is unfamiliar to us! (US English is appropriate, so if you prefer fall, feel free to keep it.)
- Since it's also found in Canada, I changed this to "autumn" :) Sasata (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Calvatia caelata and Scleroderma aurantium redirect to different names
- The current names are now given parenthetically. Sasata (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- "some authorities sink it into the" Is "sink" a technical term? I'd say "lump", but maybe that's more common in the philosophy of biology than among practicing biologists.
- I've switched it to lump (with a link to Lumpers and splitters–didn't know we had this article). Sasata (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- What does "top-shaped" mean?
- Linked top. Sasata (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- "epispore" and "pedicel" are jargony
- Glossed definitions. Sasata (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Generally very good. Sources and images are appropriate. The writing threw me a little in places, but it's certainly OK for GA purposes! As a general note, though, I think the description would be difficult to follow for readers unfamiliar with fungi. I made some fixes- please check that you're happy with them. J Milburn (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- I massaged the description a bit, and will do so some more before I eventually submit to FAC. Thanks for another helpful review! Sasata (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Happy that this is ready for GA status. Good work- promoting now! J Milburn (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)