Talk:Crucibulum (fungus)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This is quite a wonderful article. Before passing it in GA review, I have two comments:

• Since you mention the "peridiole" in the lede, you should explain what it is there, and at the first mention in the article.

Have now explicitly associated peridioles with the "eggs" in the lead. Sasata (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• You might want to add alt text to the images.

Done. Sasata (talk) 23:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• But "peridiole" is not explained in the lede, or wikilinked. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"The "eggs" of the bird's nests (technically known as peridioles) are hard waxy shells containing spores..." (no wikilink possible yet, haven't made that article) Sasata (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

So in the drawing "Cross section of C. laeve fruiting bodies in various stages of development", those are the "eggs" inside the peridioles, or what? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the confusion is from the similar-sounding word peridium? The peridium is the fruiting body (the "nest"), the peridioles are the disc-shaped structures (the "eggs") inside the peridium. Sasata (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Have changed "The "eggs" of the bird's nests" to "The "eggs" inside the bird's nests"... is that better? Sasata (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry! Maybe I am too tired. It is true that for the general reader, these articles are confusing. Is it correct now? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Concisely written b (MoS): Follows relevant 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: Neutral

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.: Stable

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: Pass

Another wonderful article. Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 00:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have notified you on your talk page that there is a potential problem in content overlap with Crucibulum laeve. Please resolve. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)