Talk:Russula virescens/GA1

GA Review

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

First issue

I see some good things in this article, and the areas that need attention; if improvements are made, chances are strong of it passing. Instead of focusing on the entire article at once, let us work on sections or individual issues one at a time. So, for starters-

1. I would like the Edibilty section to be incorporated into the lead, where the edibilty is mentioned currently. I find that info. interesting, and it should be part of the lead for readability alone.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. You would like the edibility section removed and that information put in the lead? Or you want the information about edibility that's currently in the lead to be expanded? Sasata (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops... sorry for not being clear. Yes, remove the Edibility section, but incorporate the full section content into the lead. It's quite good. And if you know of more info. that you would like to write in the lead, feel free.-- Rcej (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That suggestion would violate WP:LEAD, which explains that the lead should be a summary of the article's contents, and that anything discussed in the lead should be developed more fully in the article text. If the problem is the short lead, or the short edibility section, I can try to expand both (but info on edibility is scarce). Sasata (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If the edibility information was more than a summary, which it is not, that would be true; but all MOS guidelines allow some discretion... and readability is a strong part of GA status as well. You agree edibility info is scarce, which is kind of why it should go well in the lead. I've seen the good work you've done on this article; I'd like it to see it get an undesputable GA very much. I could incorporate the edibility stuff into the lead, but I would prefer to keep myself out of the article history as much as possible beyond the few copy edits a reviewer may make.-- Rcej (talk) 01:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

In an effort to save the standalone edibility section, I've expanded both it and the lead, as well as some bits in between. How does it look now? Sasata (talk) 04:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The lead is much better with your expansion; and I do see now that you were correct in wanting to keep the edibility section. Also, I have done a minor copy edit to the edibility section, and I think it reads a little better; you'll have to be the judge of that. Notice, too, that I reference entire sentences after the period, not after the commas of specific points; it's easier to read, yet the entire sentence and all points it addresses are still verified. If you're not comfortable with that, though, you can keep them where you'd like. Now, one thing I would strongly like to do; can we relocate the edibility section so that it is a subsection in the Description section, right above the Similar species subsection? It feels more appropriate, considering the edible aspects of the mushroom.-- Rcej (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Done. Sasata (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No hurry. And please do post your input here on anything you want to address about the article and/or the review.-- Rcej (talk) 08:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool. The first issue is taken care of. We'll start on the second issue in a day or two.-- Rcej (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Second issues

Just a few things. Take as much time as you need... no rush.

1. The Moldovan stamp image is too close to the infoboxes; it needs to be further down somewhere in the body of the article... wherever you decide is fine. If there's any significant reason why R. virescens appears on a stamp of Moldova, it may be good to write a little something about that in the caption. Don't worry about it, though, if there is no info. from which to write more; it'll be okay with the current caption.

2. MEDMOS likes citations in the lead, MOS is more flexible; I always cite the lead just so no editor can stick a 'fact' stamp up there. So, let's cite the first and last sentences of the lead; the last especially, because it could possibly be disputed... by a reference-crazed mushroom zealot.

3. In the medical research field, R. virescens has been found to be a source of ribonuclease synthesis. I skimmed over the journal abstract regarding this, so I've probably overstated; the abstract is at PMID 14651965 . If you or whomever write a mention about this, that will be great. A new section, or paragraph, etc., in whatever way you decide is fine. If a new section, it should probably be the last section in the main article.-- Rcej (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

First, I've taken the liberty of converting the section headers in this GAR to level 3, to avoid breaking up the review.

(1) The Moldovan stamp pic has been moved down into the distribution section. I don't really have anything more to add, it's mostly there because the pic is available and it adds a nice visual element. I suppose I could add to the caption something like "A postage stamp depicting R. virescens—one of five mushroom-themed stamps of different denominations released in Moldova in 1995."... if you don't think it's too trivial.

(2) I usually avoid citing in the lead, but make sure everything is well-referenced in the article body, so the zealot merely has to look down the page to assuage their thirst for verification. But I'm also pretty easy, so I made the change.

(3) I had looked at this paper before, but figured it couldn't possibly be of interest to anybody but me. Now that you've mentioned it, I have an excuse to put it in :) Let me know if it's still too "technical". Sasata (talk) 03:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The new section is great as is... you write well. That new caption you've suggested is what the Moldovan stamp image needs to pull it into more interesting context with the article; so, certainly make that edit as well. I think that'll about do it for the 'second issues'. The article is about ready for the final review.-- Rcej (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

One little nitpicky thing I see... probably doesn't matter; but, refs 26, 27, 28 need a pmid or doi. Anyway, the article's ready; I'll post all the final review stuff and everything sometime either late Wed/early Thurs. The article will be passed... kudos to you and everyone who contributed to it.-- Rcej (talk) 00:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

These journals aren't indexed by Pubmed, and I couldn't find DOI's associated with any of them. I did add the less useful ISSNs. Thanks kindly for the review, the article has definitely improved as a result. Sasata (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, too. I'm glad to have had the opportunity to work with you.-- Rcej (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article Russula virescens passes this review, and has been upgraded to good article status. The review process went smoothy, and after a number of collaborative edits to the article within consensus, it 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: