Talk:Tylopilus felleus/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 11:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see anything on first pass that seems to require further action. It's well written, well sourced, and appears comprehensive. As a bonus, the quotation about the mushroom "depressing" mushroom hunters is quite funny. I did make a few tweaks for grammar and linking; please doublecheck that I haven't inadvertently introduced any errors.
I also italicized Index Fungorum, which appears to be the common approach on articles found through Google Scholar ([1], [2], [3], [4], etc.). The template at the bottom remains unitalicized, but I left a note at the template page asking about this issue. (The Index Fungorum article itself was half-and-half between the two approaches.) I don't consider this to be important for Good Article status, however; this is simply me being OCD. Will start the checklist after I've grabbed some coffee. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Checklist
[edit]| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Prose is excellent. Spotchecks against English-language sources show no copyright issues. |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | Pass |
The Healing-mushrooms.net link provides links to peer-reviewed medical studies done with T. felleus. What do you think--are any of these worth including here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- The very last article looks interesting, and there are a cluster on the same topic - it hasn't made much of an impact but i had seen it obliquely written about. I am guessing it didn't progress as it hasn't been referenced much since - will look into it. Nice find. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds to me like we don't need to worry about it as a "main aspect", then. I'll take a last glance and presumably pass this later on this afternoon. Thanks for the quick response! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I added a bit from the last article, which is good - essentially these researchers isolated a β-glucan which they called tylopilan and investigated for antitumor activity in the late 1970s. Nothing much has come from it since, and I recall a mention in a guidebook which I will chase. Thiking of the most accurate way of adding this info . I'll run it by Sasata (talk · contribs) too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've added a couple of sentences about other research studies cited to a secondary source. Am planning to add more details (and probably a couple additional studies) for FAC, but I don't have immediate access to the Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae article that discusses anti-tumor activity. Thanks for the review, Khazar2! Sasata (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- My pleasure! I swapped out "distinctness" for "distinction" in the new text, which appears to me more correct, but revert me if this is field-specific jargon or if I'm just plain wrong. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I've added a couple of sentences about other research studies cited to a secondary source. Am planning to add more details (and probably a couple additional studies) for FAC, but I don't have immediate access to the Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae article that discusses anti-tumor activity. Thanks for the review, Khazar2! Sasata (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- Okay, I added a bit from the last article, which is good - essentially these researchers isolated a β-glucan which they called tylopilan and investigated for antitumor activity in the late 1970s. Nothing much has come from it since, and I recall a mention in a guidebook which I will chase. Thiking of the most accurate way of adding this info . I'll run it by Sasata (talk · contribs) too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Right, judging by this page's summary, the antiinflammatory testing yielded indifferent results, and doesn't appear to have been followed up upon, so I don't feel unhappy if we don't get the fulltext of that one. The others predate the 1994 study included by the same author...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)