Talk:Coccomyces dentatus

Coccomyces dentatus 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 27, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 10, 2012.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the black lines formed by Coccomyces dentatus result from antagonistic interactions between individuals of different genotypes?

GA Review

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 11:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Review

Resolved comments

-

Well-written

Prose comments

"Coccomyces dentatus is one of only two species are known with both a spermatial". I'd recomment changing "are known with" to "kown to have". "are known with" makes no grammatical sense to me.
"looaklike" I guess you meant "lookalike".

Factually accurate and verifiable

Reference comments

All sources are reliable from a first look and I shall assume good faith since I can only understand english, spanish and portuguese and hardly domain french and italian. Structure and formatting of references is up to standard, specifically high so no concerns here.

Broad in its coverage

Coverage comments

Very broad and specific. This article not only covers the main aspects but takes them into great and helpful detail.

Images

Copyright comments

File:2012-02-16 Coccomyces dentatus (J.C. Schmidt & Kunze) Sacc 199890.jpg — From Commons. Copyright verified. Rationale verified.
File:2012-02-16 Coccomyces dentatus (J.C. Schmidt & Kunze) Sacc 199894.jpg — From Commons. Copyright verified. Rationale verified.
File:2012-02-16 Coccomyces dentatus (J.C. Schmidt & Kunze) Sacc 199893.jpg — From Commons. Copyright verified. Rationale verified.

Caption comments

Captions are good, if not creative :)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Thanks kindly for the review, Hahc21. I've fixed the prose issues you mentioned above. Anything else? Sasata (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Nothing else. Passing. Good work. — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Add topic