Talk:Bothia
Add topicLatest comment: 12 years ago by Reid,iain james in topic GA Review
 | Bothia 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: October 2, 2013. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Bothia appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 24 September 2013. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Bothia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Reid,iain james (talk · contribs) 14:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I will review this article and will decide if it reaches GA or not. It is an interesting article and I will enjoy reviewing it. Some things I have spotted already are:
- The lead should be expanded to accommodate more of the Taxonomy section and a bit more of the Description section.
- The mycological characteristics box should be expanded and have |sporePrintColor= in it since the article says that its spore print colour is pale-brown.
- The new spore print color has been implemented. Sasata (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- In dscription - "Fruit bodies..." what fruit bodies? Its fruit bodies or others? Iainstein (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- The article subject. No other fungi are discussed in this section, so there's no need to repeat the name here. Sasata (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- In the Lead - this seventh sentence, "Historically, ...", should be added to the very front of the taxonomy section where it makes a lot of sense and the ref should be removed from the lead and added there instead. Iainstein (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- This information is already discussed in the taxonomy section in more detail. The sentence in the lead is just a summary. I've removed the citation, it was just there temporarily for DYK. Sasata (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- In the lead it says the spore print is pale-brown but it the mycomorphbox it says it is yellow-brown. It should be corrected to make it consistent. Iainstein (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Fixed. Sasata (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Under the synonyms header in the taxobox it lacks Phylloporus squarrosoides. Why is the species name castanella instead of castanellus since castanellus was the first name used? Iainstein (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- Good catch on the missing synonym, now added to the taxobox. The epithet was changed because the generic name Bothia is a feminine and so the ending of the epithet has to be adjusted accordingly. Sasata (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
More suggestions will come. Iainstein (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing! I've added a bit to the lead. Apparently, yellow-brown is not one of the supported spore print colors for Template:Mycomorphbox, but I'll leave a note there and see if that can be added. Sasata (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have found nothing wrong and are ready to promote GA status. It was a good article to review. Iainstein (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)