Talk:Siegfried Huneck

Siegfried Huneck 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.
Review: May 13, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Fungi: Lichens 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 is supported by the Lichen task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany 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.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 07:19, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Okay, pretty solid article overall, but I have a few comments. Suggestions for rewording are optional, while those based on MOS should generally be implemented.
The lead shouldn't have any citations, especially since all the info seem to already be cited in the body.

Removed citation. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

9 September 1928 – 9 October 2011 → 9 September, 1928 – 9 October, 2011 per MOS:DATECOMMA

Not quite; as explained in the link, that comma style only applies to month–day–year format. The applicable policy here is MOS:BIRTHDATE. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the German words and phrases in the article need lang templates.

Added lang templates to phrases and titles. I don't think it's needed for individual words that use the same characters as English. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"primary school here" → "primary school there"

Done. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"delay because of" → "delay caused by"

Done. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"study chemistry University of Jena" → "study chemistry at the University of Jena"

Done. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"time, so no" → "time and so no"

Done. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"on the chemistry of amino-derivatives of pentacyclic triterpenes" → "on the chemistry of amino-derivatives of pentacyclic triterpenes"

Triterpene was linked previously, but linked the other. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Liverwort is duplinked.

Fixed. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"retirement, in 1995 Huneck" → "retirement, in 1995, Huneck"

Comma moved. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are the binominal authorities for the species named after him necessary? They don't seem particularly relevant.

Perhaps not to everyone, but they instantly answer the question "who named species after this person?" without having to click further. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps add a photo of one of the species named after him, as otherwise the article entirely lacks images.

Couldn't find any free images of these species for use (Opegrapha huneckii doesn't really count as it's a junior synonym). However, I did add a fair-use image of him. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis were the publications mentioned chosen?

My criteria were sort of a combination of "not too short", "representative of his life work", "has been discussed/mentioned as an important work of his in his obituary", but I'm open to suggestions for adding/removing. Esculenta (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refs are consistently formatted and reliable.
A couple searches of random phrases from teh article turned up nothing except for Wikipedia and mirrors, so copyvio seems good. AryKun (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing, AryKun. Here's a diff of the changes made. Esculenta (talk)

Okay, passes the criteria now. AryKun (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]