Talk:Allocalicium/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Esculenta (talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 19:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
This looks an interesting article and one that, on a cursory glance, seems very close to meeting the criteria good article already. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk)
- Thanks! This was the effect I was going for ;) Esculenta (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Comments
[edit]- The article is of significant length, with 942 words of readable prose.
- The lead looks of an appropriate length at 148 words. It could be worth putting the two paragraphs together to make it easier to read on mobile devices as they are both quite short.
- 99.5% of authorship is by Esculenta.
- It is currently assessed as a C class article.
- The references relate to ranges of pages rather than exact page numbers. Have you considered other ways to format the references?
- I've appended more specific page numbers to several of the longer page ranges. Esculenta (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Assessment
[edit]The six good article criteria:
- It is reasonable well written.
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- The phrases "molecular phylogenetics" and "molecular phylogenetics analysis" are both used. Are they interchangeable?
- I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar issues.
- it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.
- The layout is consistent with the relevant Manuals of Style, including a nice infobox.
- the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- A reference section is included, with sources listed (including translations for non-English articles).
- all inline citations are from reliable sources;
- References seem credible, and a good mix between scholarly and non-scholarly sources.
- Spot check confirms Groner 2019 and Goward & Arsenault 2018 are relevant and discuss the topic.
- WP:AGF for the offline sources.
- it contains no original research;
- All statements are referenced.
- it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;
- Earwig gives a 12.3% chance of copyright violation, which means that it is unlikely. The highest similarity is with Rikkinen's piece quoted in the article.
- it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
- It is broad in its coverage
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- Please explain and link "apothecia" and "calicioid lichen". Done.
- it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Coverage looks appropriate for someone with some understanding of the field.
- it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
- It has a neutral point of view.
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- The text seems clear and neutral.
- it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.
- It is stable.
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- There is no evidence of edit wars.
- it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
- The infobox and other image have relevant CC licenses.
- images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
- All images either show the lichen.
- images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;
@Esculenta: Excellent work. Please take a look at more comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Simongraham:, thanks kindly for reviewing. I think I've addressed all of your suggestions. "molecular phylogenetics" = "molecular phylogenetics analysis". Prefer to keep 2-paragraph lead as each contains distinctly different summary info. Changes I've made can be seen here. Esculenta (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Esculenta: That all looks good. Thank you for also fixing the references. I believe that this article meets the criteria to be a Good Article. Are you going to add this to the Tree of Life Contest?