Talk:Gomphus clavatus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I will be reviewing this article. (Full disclosure: Sasata and I had a discussion here about reviewing each other's articles. We'll still be impartial, though.) Comments will be left at this page within (probably) the next 48 hours. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• In the Taxonomy section: "Because of a reorganization of the genus Gomphus based on phylogenetic analyses of DNA sequences,[7] G. clavatus is currently the only Gomphus species in North America.[8]" – This sentence is a bit confusing...I understand what it means, but it's a bit awkward to read. I'm not sure if there's a good way to make it a bit clearer/smoother.

Done. Sasata (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• In the Description section, you refer several times to the "fruiting body." I'm not sure what that means; is it jargon for the part of the plant where the fruit grows? Maybe it would help to link the term the first time it comes up (although, to be honest, the Sporocarp (fungi) and Ascocarp articles don't really make any sense to me, and thus might not be helpful for a lay reader), or to explain it with a brief appositive.

Done. Sasata (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• In general, the Description section (especially the Microscopic Features subsection) is rather technical and a bit difficult for a non-specialist to follow. I don't think this is a huge deal, since this is the sort of article that's mainly supposed to be a technical description for people who already know how to talk about fungi....but still, if you could go through and make whatever minor changes you can to improve readability, that would be nice. (No need to do a massive rewrite and turn it into baby talk or anything; just simplifying the language here or there if there are places where that's easy to do without making major revisions).

Better (I hope). Sasata (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That's about all I have now; I'll wait a few days so you have a chance to respond to these things, and then I can do the official review! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The revisions look great! I know this is a pretty short review, but I think everything that needs to be covered has been covered and there are no significant deficits in the article. So here's the official review:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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:

Congratulations! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)