Talk:Myxogastria/Archive 1

Archive 1

Orders in taxobox do not agree with orders in navbox

The orders in the taxobox do not seem to be agreeing with the orders in the navbox which I seem to trust more (based on their endings). --kupirijo (talk) 10:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Myxogastria

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Myxogastria's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "now":

• From Prototrichia metallica: (in German) Wolfgang Nowotny: Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Myxomyceten Oberösterreichs V In: Linzer biologische Beiträge, 22:1, pp.100-102, 1990
• From Hypothallus: Wolfgang Nowotny: Myxomyceten (Schleimpilze) und Mycetozoa (Pilztiere) - Lebensformen zwischen Tier und Pflanze In: {{BibISBN|3854740565|pages=7–37}}

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) 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); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Review

1. Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Parts of the article are unacceptably poorly written, seemingly machine-translated from German. See discussion below. Much better now, well done everyone who helped.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	lead section: reasonable length (could be a little more detailed to give a better overview). layout: ok. words to watch: ok	Pass

2. Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)	Refs are acceptable for GA, but they are in varying styles, and several refs to the same books duplicate all but the page nos - ideally these would be rationalised with a bibliography.	Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)	OK	Pass
(c) (original research)	Not an issue here.	Pass

3. Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Article clearly covers main aspects of the topic; there appears to be room for improvement here post-GA to explain things more thoroughly with more examples (and probably diagrams and micrographs).	Pass
(b) (focused)	Doubts about focus have been removed by the requested copy-editing.	Pass

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
Historic and more recent views of different researchers are described fairly.	Pass

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
No sign of edit-warring.	Pass

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	OK	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	OK	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	This article does quite a good job of making this "unprepossessing" group interesting and even attractive. There is room, post-GA, for more illustrations, examples, diagrams and explanation. As the group's complicated relationships become better understood, the article will need to be reworked to reflect improved understanding.

Discussion

There is a note on the Talk page about refs labelled "now". Has this been resolved? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

While reading the article, I've found the use of English uneven. Parts are quite well-written, but others seem to be raw machine-translation apparently from German. There were also long comments in the text from a German wiki, not matched by the current English text so it seems someone intended to use these at some stage. At the very least, the article needs to be copy-edited into reasonable English by someone who is familiar with the Myxogastria. I can guess that "plasm" means "cytoplasm" but on more specialised matters, expert attention is clearly needed. In places the article is not comprehensible, and in many others it can only be read by guessing what the German must have been (with some biological knowledge. I have therefore put the GA review on hold until the article has been copy-edited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC) (Done)

• Thanks for your review. I will check the reference and fix the "now" reference if needed. I did not translate the hidden text in German as I was not sure if it applied only to Germany or the rest of the world. German nomenclatures, especially biological, may be a bit different.--Tomcat (7) 09:46, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions and queries

Suggestions and queries:

• "formerly known as Myxomycota"; add ", when they were classed as fungi".

• Not sure if this is correct either

• "They are colloquially known as plasmodial or acellular slime molds": add "because they..."

• Does not seem to be correct

• "The continuous classification of new taxa reveals that the group is not carefully examined." Explain why would this be so?

• " 305 were only discovered in a single location or groupings." What are "groupings?"

• The plural of grouping? Not sure what you are asking me

• Section "Range" actually discusses classifications, not ranges.

• No?

• "The typical color of the spore mass becomes visible through the structure." A brief explanation is needed, why this should be so.

• "After their development, the spores first receive a diploid nucleus." Germination is being discussed: is germination refered to here, or is there an undescribed "development"?

• Is this better?

• germinable". Is this French? What's the standard verb for this feature in English

• It is English

• "Myxamoebae move amoeboidly on (meaning on the substrate crawling) and are produced in rather dry conditions. " Impenetrable. I won't go through the rest of the article.--Wetman (talk) 16:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, participles ≠ English. I reworded it slightly--Kürbis (✔) 11:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

These are all good comments. Amusingly, my own comments along the same lines ("impenetrable" -- good word!) were deleted because I put them in the wrong place. Apparently this article is a translation into English of an article in German. With some rewriting it could be made more understandable and encyclopedic. 72.179.53.2 (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Eric

No probs. Next time be careful where you write. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)