Talk:Ornatifilum

Ornatifilum has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 10, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 29, 2007.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that Ornatifilum is likely to be the oldest known fossil fungus?

Palaeontology Mid‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fungi Low‑importance

	Fungi portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article would benefit from the addition of a Mycomorphbox which lists traits used to identify this mushroom.
You can help Wikipedia by adding one.

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of April 9, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The main text generally yes, but the lead is not (see below).

2. Factually accurate?: Yes

3. Broad in coverage?: Yes

4. Neutral point of view?: Ok

5. Article stability? Yes

6. Images?: Ok

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Ruslik (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) The lead should summarize the article. It must not introduce any new information not mentioned in the main text. However in the current form the lead contains mainly information that is not mentioned in the main text of the article. I suggest moving all this new information into the article itself. After that the lead should be written to provide a real summary of the article.

2) In addition the main text lacks any introduction. It begins directly from the description of species. I suggest creating such an introduction, which can borrow information from the current lead.

~~3) The last thing. The inforbox should be placed before figures.~~

I should admit that it is in the standard place. However figures are so long that the taxobox appears at the end of the article. I may be benefitial to move one of the images from the taxobox to the article. Ruslik (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruslik (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks a lot for your review!! I'll get to work on the introduction. Just a quick query: which infobox and figures do you mean? The taxobox is in the standard place. Thanks! Verisimilus T 13:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do the intro and lede look now?

And re moving one of the images, that causes the layout of the article to become less satisfactory - I played around with a few alternatives and I think the current layout is probably the best. Verisimilus T 18:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think now the article satisfies GA criteria. I will promote it. Ruslik (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for your reviewing! Verisimilus T 11:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article? If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do? Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia? At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This survey will end on April 30. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]