Talk:Pycnoporellus alboluteus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (talk · contribs) 06:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

rev -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice job...but I'm going nitpicky:

• There are 12 redlinks. Ew! Since you're heading toward FA anyway, and seeking cup points... you ought to write the 12 stubs for blueing them out! You can!

• Yeah, I like to get rid of the redlinks too ... they'll all be gone by the time this rolls to FAC! Sasata (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I always want a Mycobox; I've never said why: Because general readers see "mushroom" and assume "plant", or see "fungus" and assume "mildew"... and all biology-related infoboxes look alike. But Mycoboxes are unique article elements, for this specific group of organisms.

• Mycoboxes are best with fungi that produce macroscopic fruit bodies (agaric, boletoid, mycenoid, clitocyboid, etc. etc.). Here's what it would look like for this species:

Pycnoporellus alboluteus Mycological characteristics
	Pores on hymenium
	No distinct cap
	Spore print is white
	Ecology is saprotrophic
	Edibility is unknown

• Is it worth the image crowding that will result? Sasata (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• No, don't mess up your images just for that! -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 05:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would use File:Pycnoporellus alboluteus 160227.jpg for the infobox, and File:Pycnoporellus alboluteus 61386.jpg in the Description section. Why? The former is the actual fungus in of itself, highlights the pale orange, and we can see at first glance it is "toothlike" without being told in the caption; but the latter actually distracts from the fungus while we momentarily figure that we aren't just seeing a chopped tree with crud on the wood. If in the Descr., though, with the caption further emphasizing "The whole thing will come off in a single sheet!"... that is really cool, and they'll read much more!!

• You've convinced me, done. Sasata (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yay! My Virgo OCD appreciates that...lol ;-) -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 05:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• The lede mentions both edibility and culinary unknowns; the latter is not mentioned in the article. Perhaps add a full-blown edibility section, to elaborate on that and the beetle chow! ;) -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 05:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• It's hard to expand on unknown edibility, and insect usage usually goes in ecology, which, when there's not much to say, is typically wrapped into the "Habitat and distribution" section. I've amended the section title to include "Ecology", but I don't think there's too much else I can do here ... Sasata (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ok. Rcej (Robert) – talk 05:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• This sentence in Similar species doesn't read like your usual wording: "Diagnostic features used in the field to identify Pycnoporellus alboluteus include ...". I don't like using "diagnosis" to describe species identification; it has a "disease" connotation. -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 05:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Reworded to "Field characteristics used to identify ..." Sasata (talk) 05:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Betta! I will pass here...don't really see anything else! Much success with its FA! ;) -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 11:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Rcej! Sasata (talk) 23:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article Pycnoporellus alboluteus passes this review, and has been promoted to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following 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: Pass