Talk:Limnoperdon/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) – talk 07:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work! A few issues:

In Tax, class and phylo, no need for a cladogram?

Ok, I added one from Matheny et al. (2006) as I think it best illustrates the position of the family (related to the Tricholomataceae and Pluteaceae) in the Agaricales; plus, that paper is very highly cited. Sasata (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added labels of families to the cladogram that "best illustrates the position of the family" (family Limnoperdaceae is actually the subject of the article) for simplification and for hopefully better understanding and it was also possible to trim and simplify the description of the cladogram. Sounds OK? --Snek01 (talk) 15:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snek, the labels to indicate the families are a good idea, thanks! Sasata (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thx Sneck01! Much appreciated :-) Rcej (Robert) – talk 04:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Discovery we have " The species was discovered floating in petri dishes that contained submerged hardwood twigs previously collected from a marsh in the state of Washington." But in Habitat and distr., it reads "The fruit bodies of Limnoperdon incarnatum were first found floating on water, associated with soaked hardwood twigs from a marsh next to a playground on the south shore of Lake Union in Seattle, Washington." A little unclear; how about clarifying and combining the sections so we can read the entire discovery details at one time? :)

I've combined as suggested to streamline and remove the repetition. Sasata (talk) 06:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So much better! Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Development, I may have misread, but there is little mention of the developmental association with the substrate. Give the twigs a Tweet... ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 04:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph summarizes McCabe's work, but he grew the fungus on solid agar media, and so did not observe the mycelial strand that Escobar found earlier when he grew the fungus in liquid media. I have attempted to clarify the attachment of the fungus to the substrate in the lead. (p.s. I tweaked the DYK submission) Sasata (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okee-dokee! One final question: "the aquatic fungus Limnoperdon incarnatum." That exact verbage is only used in the lead, but is that descriptive, or is there an official classification of 'aquatic fungi'? Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, aquatic fungi are somewhat new to me (I'm pushing the boundaries of my mushroom box, don't cha know) , but based on this definition "Aquatic fungi, in the broadest sense, include fungi present transiently in water, terrestrial fungi that release spores which are dispersed in water, and species that function entirely within water" they seem to fit. Plus, the sources call it that :) Sasata (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. We are a pass! Rcej (Robert) – talk 04:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rcej, good review, the article has been nicely improved. Your last comment reminds me that Wikipedia could do with articles on aquatic fungi as well as marine fungi, they are well-studied fields with a vast literature... Sasata (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the cladogram at standard text size for standard readability. Try to follow guidelines despite the fact, that some (even highly evaluated) articles ignores the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting)#Font size. Feel free to be inspired for example in also good article Evolutionary history of life that widely uses cladograms. Thank you for your consideration and congratulation for good article approval. --Snek01 (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Limnoperdon passes this review, and has been promoted to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: Pass