Talk:Urnula craterium/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am reviewing this article for GA and have noted a few points.

• In the lede you note in two different places that it causes a canker.

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Should not the lede include the range?

Yes it should, now it does. Sasata (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "This restructuring resulted in a taxomically untenable situation where the genus Urnula consisted of a single species with ambiguous resemblance to the original species" - suggest "in which" instead of "where" - but this is an opinion only.

I agree with your suggestion. Sasata (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "As Kupfer explains, Rehm did not explain why he believed ..." - vary the wording from two "explain"s

Yikes, how'd I miss that? Words must have been too close together for me to focus in on them properly :) Sasata (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "The flesh of the ascocarp walls is initially tough and gelatinous, then later tough and leathery" - Perhaps "The flesh of the ascocarp walls is tough and initially gelatinous and later become leathery" or something where you don't repeat "tough".

Agree, that sounds better. Sasata (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Later you say it is not recommended for eating because of its tough flesh. Does all of the flesh come from the ascocarp walls? Is that what is eaten in fungi generally?

There's a little bit of root-like mycelia connecting the ascocarp to the wood its growing on, but yes, all the flesh is ascocarp walls. Most people wouldn't bother eating cup-fungi anyways, but the info is included in some guidebooks and it's information people expect to see. Sasata (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "(fungal hyphae making up the outer velvety surface are variable in length, and are thick-walled, blunt, and appear to wind from side to side (flexuous)." Are you missing a ")"?

Not any more. Sasata (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "and wide pH range" - are you referring to soil, as mention of this is not commonly in your articles.

Yes, have clarified now. Sasata (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Urnula craterium, when grown in liquid culture, produces chemicals that inhibit the growth of other fungi that are pathogenic to aspen; specifically, it is antagonistic to aspen blue-stain fungi Ophiostoma crassivaginatum and O. piliferum, as well as the wood-decay fungus Phellinus tremulae. It has been shown to produce the chemicals pestalotin, 5,6-dehydropestalotin, 4-methoxy-3,5-dimethyl-pyran-2-one, and (4S)-3,4-dihydro-4,8-dihydroxy-1(2H)-napthalenone." Not sure what this list of chemicals is - is it a list of "chemicals that inhibit the growth of other fungi that are pathogenic to aspen"?

Have clarified. Sasata (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• You can consider adding alt text per WP:ALT for the visually impaired (required for FA).

Ok, done for 2 images. AFAIK, alt text is not required for taxobox image (no place to put it in the template). Sasata (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS):Follows 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

Nice. Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 23:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mattisse! Sasata (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)