- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by BlueMoonset (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Aecidium mori
edit
- ... that the Aecidium mori causes the Mulberry rust disease on the Mulberry (pictured) flowering plant, which decreases the quantity of leaves on the trees?
Created/expanded by Thine Antique Pen (talk). Self nom at 20:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
New enough, long enough (3758), well-written, properly linked, properly cited. Pity the photograph doesn't show the fungus on the Mulberry, but the (pictured) reference is correctly limited. -- Ultracobalt (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the article needs a good copyedit, some of the prose is confusing or inaccurate, e.g.
- "It is often only found in the countries of Asia." often only?
- "located on the flowering plant of Morus, which only reaches 10–15 metres (33–49 feet) in height." Why only? Is this not high enough for a flowering plant to grow?
- "In 1890, Barclay had identified this species of fungi to be a duplicate of Caeoma mori and changed the name of it." huh?
- "The name was changed back to the original a short time later, after Aecidium mori was more commonly used." confuzzling
- most of the "Description" section is actually taxonomy
- why are retrieval dates given for all the references? These are not available online as far as I'm aware.
- the external link leads to paywall. Would be better to just use the distribution data in the article. Sasata (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
