Talk:Leccinellum rugosiceps

Leccinellum rugosiceps 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: February 22, 2015. (Reviewed version).

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 16:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sasata, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments for me in the meantime. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Sasata, I have completed a thorough review and re-review of this article and I assess it to meet all the criteria for Good Article status. I do, however, have a few comments and questions that should be addressed prior to its passage to Good Article status. Thank you again for your incredible efforts in completing this article! -- Caponer (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kindly for your review. I have made a few changes in response to your suggestions below. Sasata (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sasata, thank you for your speedy response to my below comments and suggestions. I appreciate all your efforts on this article, and upon my review and re-review, I find that the article is ready for passage to GA status. Thank you again and congratulations on a job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article stands alone as a concise overview and summary of the article. The lede defines the fungus, establishes context for the fungus, explains why the fungus is notable, and summarizes the most important points of the fungus.
The image of the fruit bodies of the bolete fungus is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore eligible for usage here.
The info box is beautifully formatted and its content is cited within the prose and within the template.
The lede is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Taxonomy

Wiki-link Mycology for mycologist for those of us unfamiliar with this branch of biology.

Done. Sasata (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-link and type as Port Jefferson, New York instead.

Done. Sasata (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Inline citation, it is suggested that inline citations should be consolidated at the end of sentences and paragraphs, and not within. But of course, this is not a deal breaker, and is merely a suggestion.

I like to ensure that the material is more readily verifiable by having the citation close to the information, per WP:CITEDENSE: "Some sections (e.g., dense technical subjects) may even require more than one inline citation per sentence." Sasata (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Description

The image of the spores is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore eligible for use here.
The image of Leccinellum crocipodium is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is free to use here.
It is mentioned in this section that this fungus does not turn blue when bruised; is this common when this type of fungus is bruised? If so, this should be mentioned and cited.

Added "Unlike many other boletes," to indicate that the bluing color change is not uncommon. Sasata (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Edibility

As mentioned above, per Wikipedia:Inline citation, it is suggested that inline citations should be consolidated at the end of sentences and paragraphs, and not within. But of course, this is not a deal breaker, and is merely a suggestion.
Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.

Habitat and distribution

The image of the collection of L. rugosiceps fruit bodies is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is free for use here.
As mentioned above, per Wikipedia:Inline citation, it is suggested that inline citations should be consolidated at the end of sentences and paragraphs, and not within. But of course, this is not a deal breaker, and is merely a suggestion.
Costa Rica is mentioned earlier in the "Similar species" subsection and should therefore be wiki-linked there.

Done. Sasata (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, this section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no other comments or suggestions for this section.