Talk:Tuber oregonense/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) – talk 09:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool! Just a few issues:

• In taxonomy; "...although Tuber oregonense had previously been used as a provisional name in a number of field guides and other popular publications for several years."

• What circumstance and/or who was the initiator of the provisional naming?

• Added. Sasata (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• In description; these sentences are a little gawky ;)

• "The peridium of young fruit bodies is white, soon developing red to reddish-brown or orange brown patches; with age becoming orange-brown to reddish brown overall and often cracking, 0.2–0.4 mm thick, the surface roughened-glabrous to minutely pubescent, densely in the furrows and more scattered on the exposed lobes where the pubescence often collapses in age."
• "The spore walls are 2–3 µm thick; ornamentation an orderly alveolate reticulum, the alveolae 5–6-sided, 5–8(-9) along the spore length, the corners forming spines (4-)5–7(-8) by 0.5 µm broad, somewhat broader at the base, the alveolar walls uniformly as tall as the spines." -- Rcej (Robert) – talk 05:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, don't know how I missed this before, sorry. Removed some excess detail and dejargoned. Let me know if there's more that needs to be softened. Sasata (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Much better! Just give some caption love to File:Tuber oregonense 35390.jpg so we know more thoroughly what we're seeing, and it's show time! Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Good? Sasata (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Yes it be! Pass :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 09:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing! Sasata (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article Tuber oregonense 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:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass