Talk:Placidium arboreum

Placidium arboreum 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: November 6, 2023. (Reviewed version).

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
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).

GA Review

Passed. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: SilverTiger12 (talk · contribs) 21:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I recommend adding alt-text to both images.

Done. Esculenta (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Range map? It'd be nice to have one, but not necessary if none is available.
- I'm afraid my map-making abilities at this time don't extend far beyond inputting coordinates into a template! Esculenta (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are places where you can ask for a map be made for an article: WP:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
..and as of 2017, Ontario, Canada. Why the "and as of 2017"? Was it just newly found to occur there, or was it introduced? Either way, this unnecessary in the lede.

The former, but it's gone now. Esculenta (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Italicize nomen nudum.

Done. Esculenta (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for the first pass, I'll probably do a second after the above concerns are addressed. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look! Esculenta (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since a range map isn't required- though I still request that you attempt to get one- I'm going to pass this article now. Good job, Esculenta. SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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:
· · ·

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.