Talk:Buxbaumia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Buxbaumia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi EncycloPetey! I just returned from a week in the boreal forest, where in addition to my regular mushroom-hunting, I took several pictures of mosses for a couple of bryophyte articles that are on the backburner, so it is with pleasure and interest that I will review this article. Should be done in a day or two. Sasata (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments Information that seems to be missing (imho). Do you agree?

• type species in taxobox
• basic information on the 12 species: species authority and year described; where they are found; enough descriptive info to know how the species are distinguished from each other
• conservation status: are any species red-listed?
• any species known to have interesting bioactive compounds?
• history section: how about taking some of it out of the lead (currently misplaced, as it is not discussed later in the article) and expand to give info about important early papers/monographs or researchers who are noted for contributing to the knowledge of the genus. You might even include some quotes from the original papers to add interest. For example, Britton (1896) described Buxbaumia as "small, antique, bronze lamps, perched on top of a slender pedestal, which looks as if it would topple over with the weight of the vessel so unequally poised on its apex."

Citation: Britton EG. (1896). The humpbacked elves. The Observer 7(March): 105–113. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• the significance of the loss of the RNA polymerase gene (rpoA) in the choloroplast genome (see Goffinet, B; Wickett, NJ; Shaw, AJ, et al. (2005). Phylogenetic significance of the rpoA loss in the chloroplast genome of mosses. TAXON 54(2): 353-360)
• substrate requirements for spore germination (see Wiklund, K; Rydin, H. (2004). Ecophysiological constraints on spore establishment in bryophytes. FUNCTIONAL ECOLOGY 18(6):907-913)
• use as indicator species to assess the biodiversity value of potential forest fertilization stands (see Gustafsson, L; Appelgren, L; Nordin, A. (2005). Biodiversity value of potential forest fertilisation stands, as assessed by red-listed and 'signal' bryophytes and lichens. SILVA FENNICA39(2): 191-200)
• mention of the term myco-heterotrophy
• what do the spores typically look like?

Question: Are you reviewing this for GA or for FA? I only nominated for GA, which has specific and limited requirements. FA requires comprehensive coverage of the topic, but the GA criteria do not. Which GA criterion are you using in producing this list of "missing" information? I will address each point, but most of the items above are of little or no significance to Buxbaumia as far as I could tell from my researches.

Sorry if you didn't like the suggestions. I generally like to toss out whatever ideas I can think of in the hopes that some might be useful to improve the article. Most reviewees like it, but I'll try to curb my enthusiasm for the subject matter here :) Sasata (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: redlisting - Very few bryophytes have been redlisted internationally, mostly because so little is known about the distribution and frequency of the species to list them.[1] As far as I know, all 92 IUCN red-listed bryophyte species have articles, and (as you can see) no Buxbaumia species have articles. There aren't any such species in the IUCN database. Some nations have redlisted byrophytes that are not internationally listed, but those are individual species and are listed by individual nations. B. viridis is "near threatened" in Sweden, but that's hardly relevant to an article about a globally distributed genus with 11 other species. Some species that are locally threatened are commonly found in other locations (e.g. the fern Dennstaedtia punctilobula). In any event, conservation status applies only to species, not to genera. If you ask the WP:TOL or WP:PLANTS, I'm sure they'd agree.

I didn't mean to threaten the integrity of the stand-alone genus article, I just though it might be interesting to include some some facts about the members that comprise the genus, so that the reader might be able to walk away with a bit more information than just a list of the 12 species. Sasata (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of the species are very poorly known. Some have only a single article published in which the new species was recognized. There are perhaps two or three species upon which most publications have been done, so describing those species would be essentially to repeat the information for the genus as a whole. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You're making my point for me. If these species are so little known, only mentioned once in a single article (have you actually checked?) there is not enough info to warrant a separate species article, and so some species information should be summarized in the genus-level article. Where's it gonna go otherwise? Or do we pretend it doesn't exist? Sasata (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, we disagree about this point of article separation, but it's not a GA issue so I won't pursue the topic. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: interesting compounds - Specimens of these mosses are very rarely collected. Their chemistry has only been minimally studied. The most interesting study I could find pertained to the uptake of strontium by Buxbaumia, but the study itself noted that this happens in most plants, which means that the result is not that special. Bryophytes have been studied for their phytochemistry extensively, however the majority of compounds found (and there are a lot of them) have no known significance. There are catalogs of phytochemicals from bryophytes for which the chemicals have a name, categorization by type, and perhaps a structure. The activity, function, and/or value is rarely studied in any bryophyte. Some uniquely present chemicals could be found for almost any bryophyte genus, but in some cases their uniqueness is of dubious significance because only the one or a few taxa were examined for that compound.

Ok. Sasata (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: History: I do not have access to a good botanical library right now, other than my own. I wouldn't be able to make those kinds of edits until winter break or next summer when I can travel to a good library at a time when they're open. The nearest one is UC Berkeley, and their libraries will be closed on Saturdays now, when I might have been able to visit. Britton's quote is amusing, and might be integratable if I had the full citation. However, I think it fits better under Description, for giving an idea of what the sporophytes look like. It doesn't really contribute to a knowledge of the genus. Schofield assembled a good list of the major papers published, but most of them cover a single species or a single region, usually describing a new species. Bryophyte publications have historically been "notes" or "observations" on one aspect of one or two species. I suspect that only a true expert in bryology would benefit from a discussion of publication history on Buxbaumia, and that a typical WP reader would be nonplussed at best and completely lost at wortst.

If you agree it might benefit the article, I could write this section myself, put it up here for discussion, and you could then pick the pieces you like. I realize its unconventional GAN behavior, but it just might work... Sasata (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: rpoA, Buxbaumia has not lost this gene, only the arthrodontous mosses have. This character is a synapomorphy for that group. Buxbaumia has the gene, which implies it's not a member of that group; this is true for several major lines of mosses. But then, no one has suggested that Bubaumia was part of the arthrodontous group (since its perstome is not arthrodontous). The information could be worked into the section deiscussing the phylogeny, but since it's really about a character uniting the arthrodontous mosses, I'm not sure it's particularly relevant to the Buxbaumia article.

I'm all about giving the reader the information, and then they can decide if it's relevant or not. I'll write something up for this too, if you'd like. Sasata (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. Saying "Buxbaumia does not have this feature" (which is also not present in Sphagnum, Polytrichopsida, etc.) is like saying "salmon don't have this genetic structuring that's found only in tetrapods." It's redundant information, since the salmon is not a tetrapod and no one has ever suggested it might belong among the tetrapods. Likewise, Buxbaumia is not an arthrodontous moss, and has never been classified as such. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't misunderstand. Have you actually read the article, or just looked at the abstract? Sasata (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Both. Goffinet is a leader of the moss phylogeny efforts right now, so his articles are the ones I usually look for first. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, by your own admission, you have read the article, by someone you claim is a leader in the field, and certainly you must then know that there are conclusions that may be drawn from these results about the evolutionary history of mosses, and specifically, where Buxbaumia fits into this. I don't understand why you wouldn't summarize these results with a sentence or two in the article. Is this your idea of "trivia will dilute the true content"? Sasata (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that conclusions may be drawn does not make those conclusions relevant or important to this article. They are at most worth a mention in the Moss article. The conclusions do not modify the position of Buxbaumia within the cladogram present in the article, which cladogram appeared in the cited 2004 Goffinet paper, and is based on work in the cited paper by Magombo. Both of those papers were already out when the Goffinet paper in question was published. That paper makes a big deal about a character that doesn't alter the view of relationships that was already known. It's a result, but one that doesn't really have impact on the state of the knowledge; it's a "me too" paper that would have been much more significant if it had come out two years earlier. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: establishment - The study only examined one species B. viridis, and the information would be better treated there, in my opinion, since the common substrates for individual bryophyte species can be highly variable. In Buxbaumia, some species grow on soil or rock, while others prefer bark. Elaborating on the germination conditions of just one species would bias the article towards that one species, and not be relevant to the genus as a whole. If similar studies had been done for multiple species, then the information could be discussed for the genus, but with a study on just one of 12 species, the information doesn't really apply.

Rather than give no information at all, isn't the lesser evil to present the information at hand (of course clarifying that it is merely 1 species of 12). Why not actually check the source to see if the phycology experts drew for themselves some conclusions from their data about the genus as a whole (which can then be cited)? Sasata (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The study concluded that B. viridis had features well-suited for germinating on wood, which is where that species grows. That information won't be relevant for the soil or rock species. The generalization the authors make is about the tradeoff in mosses as a whole between moisture-holding capacity and pH. This is rather presumptuous, since the authors examined exactly two species--one of each type. Aside: Was the article written by phycologists? I thought they were plant ecologists. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There's species in this genus that grow on rocks, soil and wood? Gee, that sounds interesting, I sure wish the article said something about that. Sasata (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean like, "The plants grow on decaying wood, rock outcrops, or directly on the soil."? --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Exactly—you're proving my point again. You way the article reads now, the reader gets the impression that all 12 species can grow on "decaying wood, rock outcrops, or directly on the soil". Your argument for _not_ including some info on spore germination is that it would imbalance the article because different species grow on different substrates. Either the article is incomplete by not mentioning the species differences in substrate preference, or your argument is factually incorrect, or misleading. Sasata (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So then, you are making a big deal that the article says "plants grow" and you want it to say "species grow variously"? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: indicator species - It isn't used as an indicator species; it's not collected often enough for that. The article you've noted merely lists the species B. viridis in a table, referring to another Gustafsson article published in 2000. That article is a list of threatened species in Sweden. B. viridis is listed as "near threatened", but only in Sweden apparently. This (again) is species-specific information, and is not particularly relevant to an article about the genus.

I'm looking for ways to help a rather short genus article become more informative by incorporating some of the information that's out there. The genus means nothing without the species that comprise the genus. Sasata (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

But throwing in bits of what is essentially trivia will dilute the true content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"True content"? Much of the "true content" is missing. Sasata (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If this were an FA review, that would matter, but it isn't. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: spores. Moss spores, for the most part, are not described in floras or in texts because most are roughly the same size (about 20 microns in diameter) and for most species are nearly featureless (they may have papillae or they may not). The few exceptions (e.g. Gigaspermaceae) get coverage because they actually stand out, but most moss spores are very similar to each other. Liverworts, on the other hand, have interestingly-ornamented and highly variable spores. Mosses do not, and as a result their spores are rarely described. There is a published atlas of European moss spores, but I do not have access to it. Likewise, an SEM study of European "Buxbaumiaceae" spores appeared in 1981 in the Journal of Bryology, but that's a specialized enough journal that I won't be able to access it until I have time off at winter break or next summer. I suspect, since I could find no specific in any major bryophyte text or Flora, that Buxbaumia spores are of the generic sort most mosses have.

If they are the same size and featureless across the genera, why not say so, instead of assuming it's useless information for the reader? I'll try to write something up for this too. Sasata (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you recommend writing this as a template, so it can be transcluded on every moss genus page? --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice if info about Buxbaumia spores were on the Buxbaumia page. By your own admission, there is a reliable source that has this information, but you chose not to include it because it is currently inconvenient for you to access it. Perhaps this is a sign that the article is not yet developed enough and needs more work put into it? Sasata (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, there is a potential source; I do not know what the source actually contains. I have only a citation in another work. This isn't an FA review, so the lack of a fact that (probably) isn't different from the 13,000 other moss taxa should hardly be a bar to GA status. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That you refuse to even try to find the source to determine this suggests to me we aren't going to get anywhere with this review. Sasata (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That you haven't listened to me suggests you simply wish to belittle me. I don't apreciate that. I do not have access to means of acquiring the source. I know the source exists, and I know where it can be accessed, but that location is itself no longer accessible. I am not willing to skip a day of work and risk being fired because of a GA review. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: myco-heterotrophy. Authors seem to be divided on that issue, and it doesn't seem to be well-studied in Buxbaumia. Most statements about the plant's degree of reliance on associated fungi for nutrition are speculative. The same few speculative reports seem to be passed around from author to author without any data. I've included a cited mention of the possibility of myco-heterotrophy in the article already, which is about as far as any reliable source seems to go. The only potential source I found that might use data was published in the Italian journal Delpinoa, which I don't have access to.

Again, if authors are divided on the issue, why isn't that mentioned in the article? I'll see what I can find. Sasata (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The speculation is indicated, but finding an explicit citable statement that authors are divided wasn't possible for me. If you can find such a statement, that would be great. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with your suggestion to include the information on all the individual species. That information belongs on the pages for those species, not on the page for the genus. The page for any higher taxon need not describe the details of all its member taxa. Would Piper have to have this information for all 1000-2000 species? Would the page on grasses need to have basic distribution information about every genus in order to be a GA? I don't think that this material should be reasonable to include on an article about the genus, except in cases where the genus has one, two, or perhaps three species. The same should be true about conservation status of individual species; that information pertains just to the one species and not to the genus.

I assume common sense would apply in these cases. Obviously, an article about a genus with 2000 species will be structured differently than one with 12. How hard would it be to make a table or a list giving basic information about 12 species (eg. name, authority, year of publication, distribution, and a reference). Don't you think the reader would appreciate a summary like that? There's no information about what taxonomical characteristics separate and define species. Sasata (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That information isn't readily available, and is largely ignored in the literature, since most of the taxa do not co-occur. Only four of the species exist in North America, for example, so comparisons have been written only for those four species in North American treatments. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that I can find this information with a few mouse clicks renders your logic incorrect. Did you know that the ISI Web of Knowledge turns up 123 results in a search for Buxbaumia? JSTOR turns up 711. Sasata (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you know that JSTOR requires me to pay to see the articles (and not just the abstracts)? Did you know that the ISI Web of Knowledge is not accessible through my ISP? I am no longer at a major research institution, and do not have the privileges you seem to have. Please do not criticize others for lacking the wealth that you do.

Did you know that most major libraries will do an interlibrary loan to get the document for you? And please don't insult me by calling me wealthy, I'm a poor SOB like most others. Sasata (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you know that there are no such libraries in my area? You have again twisted my words. Read again what I wrote; it should have been clear from the context that "wealth" referred to the vast quantities of information you have at your fingertips, and which I do not. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If you found the separating taxonomic characters, that's great, because a Google search doesn't seem to be yielding that. The North America species may be distinguished on the basis of shape and color, but without access to each species' diagnosis, I would not know what characters separate and define the various species. Characters in keys are not always taxonomic; the Jepson Manual (FLora of California) uses in its key for species of Pinus: "seed cone generally / not torn apart by animals", which is hardly a taxonomic character. Without the diagnoses, I've no idea whether the same is true of the FNA key for Buxbaumia, nor do I know whether the same set of charatcers would be usable for the other species. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If I can find out which species is the type, I'll include it. Few WP plant articles have type species information (Banksia is a notable exception), so it isn't something I usually think about. It's also difficult to find reliable information (or sometimes any information) about bryophyte type. Schuster, e.g. published a mammoth six-volume work on the liverworts and hornworts, and notoroiusly got wrong the type for the two most common hornwort genera, resulting in incorrect nomenclature for nearly every North American hornwort species. Since his work was the first (and biggest) for North America (or for hornworts at all), the mistake spread to numerous other publications. I suspect the type is B. aphylla, but haven't been able to track down a definitive statement to that effect. Some bryophyte genera have only recently been typified. The liverwort Marchantia polymorpha, for example, is the single-most studied liverwort worldwide in botany classes, but was only given a specified type in recent decades, despite being a Linnean taxon. The genus Anthoceros did not have a type until Proskauer assigned one in the 1970s, even though it is the basis for the name of the Anthocerotophyta as a whole. In short, it is entirely possible that Buxbaumia has no designated type, and short of finding a source that says one way or the other, I have no way of knowing.

--EncycloPetey (talk) 05:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's difficult to find this information without access to the sources. I have access to the sources, and wouldn't mind helping to expand the article if you agree with my reasonings above, and are receptive to potential improvements. Sasata (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, if I do the work I'm suggesting and it is included in the article, then I become a major contributor, and am no longer fit to do the GA review. Conundrum. Suggestions? Sasata (talk) 06:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you believe the improvements are necessary for the article to be rated GA? If so, which criterion are you using? If not, then you can certainly make those improvements after reviewing the article. There is no requirement that a GA must halt improvements once it achieves that status. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious I don't think it meets the criteria 3a (comprehensiveness), and it's also pretty obvious that we have different opinions about the comprehensiveness criterion. In its current state I would fail on that basis, but of course you can go to Good article reassessment for another opinion. Sasata (talk) 07:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Um... GA criteria 3a is not "comprehensiveness", and explicitly so. See the footnote on WP:WIAGA: "it allows short articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." (emphasis mine) I guess I will need another reviewer, as you seem to be applying FA criteria instead of GA criteria. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if one were to explicate all of the issues I brought up, the article would be far from comprehensive. This has nothing to do with FA, I'm using GA criterion 3a: "Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic". I think it fails in that aspect. Rather than failing, I'll ask for a second opinion. Sasata (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion

Sasata evidently has considerable expertise in this field (which I do not), and I can see the evidence from the dialogue above that (s)he feels that the article is short of GA criterion 3a. May I humbly put forward for consideration WP:GAN 'How to review an article' #5: "Reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to fix problems with the article under review"? The best result for the encyclopedia would be for Sasata to make the improvements that can be agreed with EncycloPetey. I understand EncycloPetey's problems with hard-to-find sources, but hope that between the two of you, you can expand the article with extra sources.

I do not believe that improvements made by a reviewer during a review automatically disqualify them from completing the review, but if both of you wish, I would be willing to confirm a pass as an outside opinion, subject to at least some of the "Broad in its coverage" concerns being met, and subject to compliance with WP:LEAD which would require some of the material in the lead to be developed within the article body. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 02:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

But criterion 3a is not "comprehensiveness"? I question Sasata's assertion that it is. The word "comprehensiveness" is not even used in the WP:WIAGA criteria except in a footnote where GA criterion 3a is contrasted with the comprehensiveness criterion of FA. GA criterion 3a reads "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". The criterion does not require comprehensive coverage of those aspects; it merely required that they be "addressed". I believe Sasta is misapplying FA criteria to a GA review. There is a great deal of difference between determining whether as article is of "broad" coverage and whether an article is "comprehensive". --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I implied above that criterion 3a requires comprehensiveness. However, you have a reviewer above stating that in their opinion it falls short of meeting the requirement of addressing the main aspects of the topic. Such a judgement is always going to be an opinion, but the reviewer clearly has expertise in this field and that opinion must carry some weight. Moreover, the reviewer has offered to work with you to expand the article to remove that concern. As I see it, you have the option of collaborating with someone who shares your interest and improving the article; or allowing the article to fail and requesting a review. Either way, you will still have to address the concern about WP:WIAGA criterion 1b (the lead). --RexxS (talk) 02:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

As I stated before I'm willing to help work on the article if EP is receptive to expanding and improving the article collaboratively; doing this research will involve some time commitment and travel to the library, and I'm not a fan of wasting my time :) And just to clarify, it's not that I think the article is not comprehensive, rather, it doesn't "address the main aspects of the topic", for the reasons I've indicated previously. Sasata (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC) (ec) I also wanted to mention that I am by no means an expert on this topic, just an interested reader, and I have a certain expectation about what information a genus-level Good Article should contain, having written and read a few myself. Sasata (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: RexxS: That wasn't what I said. My concern is that Sasata has said, "It's pretty obvious I don't think it meets the criteria 3a (comprehensiveness), and it's also pretty obvious that we have different opinions about the comprehensiveness criterion. In its current state I would fail on that basis." In agreeing with her opinon, do you agree with her statement about comprehensiveness? My expertise and the reviewer's expertise in this field are not at issue; the issue is the misapplication of assessment criteria. Such an issue is independent of the topic of the article. If comprehensiveness is now a GA criterion, then there' no point to having it anymore, since it then duplicates FA. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't making myself clear. I hope the following will help:

• I do not agree with Sasata's choice of words (comprehensiveness) in this diff.
• There is no issue of misapplication of assessment criteria. Sasata corrected him/herself quite clearly in this diff.
• I assume that EncycloPetey holds the opinion that the article meets the criterion "it addresses the main aspects of the topic".
• Sasata maintains the opinion that it does not address all the main aspects of the topic.

I'm not offering a second opinion on whether or not an error in a reviewer's choice of words is sufficient grounds for appealing a review. The important point is improving the article, not arguing about semantics. I am offering an opinion for a possible way forward. Please accept that satisfying criterion 3a (Broad in its coverage/addresses the main aspects of the topic) is by necessity a subjective judgement (what are the main aspects). The reviewer has suggested aspects that are not presently included, which I assume they believe are main aspects. Expertise in this field now becomes an important issue if you want someone to perform a pendulum arbitration between your two differing opinions on what the main aspects of the topic are. You could contact appropriate wikiprojects to seek someone with such expertise. Alternatively, you could collaborate and improve the article to the stage where both opinions are satisfied. I merely observe that the article benefits most from the second course of action. --RexxS (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

Prose is well-written; article complies with MOS.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):

   Referenced to reliable sources.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Coverage is weak for a genus-level article (imo, of course). Main editor believes coverage to be adequate, is much more familiar with topic area, and resistant to collaborative improvement, so I defer to his judgment. Suggestions for expansion have been made for those who wish to improve this aspect of the article.

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. 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):

   All images have appropriate free use licenses.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: