Talk:Spruce/GA1

GA review

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.

---

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

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:44, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Bgsu98 (talk · contribs) 22:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello... I will do this review, along with your Pine article. I hope to start this review in the next day or two. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll respond promptly to any comments. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments (9/21/25)

• In Description, you use the word "bracts". What are these? This is not a term most people would be familiar with, nor can the meaning be determined by the context of the paragraph.
  • Glossed and wikilinked.

• The phrase "Picea engelmannii do for instance differ in flower..." reads a little awkwardly. I would recommend "Picea engelmannii, for instance, differ in flower..."
  • Edited.

• In Basal species, I would recommend lower-casing "northern" in the parenthese after Clade I.
  • Done.

• Recommend de-wikilinking China, Japan, Taiwan, Turkey, Afghanistan, India, Korea, Serbia, Bosnia per MOS:OVERLINK.
  • Done.

• In Distribution and habitat, recommend removing "the" from the first sentence: "Like firs and pines..."
  • Done.

• Also recommend removing "the" in the following sentence. "Spruces tolerate heat less well than firs". Also, "less well" sounds very weird; perhaps "worse"?
  • Edited.

• In Diseases, what is sirococcus blight? Is there a wikilink available?
  • It's explained already as a disease that causes severe defoliation and shoot blight; there's no link available.

• Replace UK with United Kingdom.
  • Done.

• What is "needle cast"?
  • Done.

• What is meant by "ascomycete"?
  • This is already a gloss on Rhizosphaera, it's already explained in context as a type of fungus, and it's already wikilinked.

• What are "conidia"?
  • This is already explained as a way of spreading the fungus asexually, and wikilinked.

• In Predators, you write that "spruce regeneration depended on protection". Shouldn't it be "depends", as I assume the situation is still true?
  • Done.

• Recommend wikilinking "black bear".
  • Done.

• In Pests, you have "They bring ophiostomatoid fungi, some of them serious tree pathogens, with them". I recommend slightly rewording: "They bring with them ophiostomatoid fungi, some of them serious tree pathogens."
  • Done.

• Recommend wikilinking "phloem". I know what the phloem is, but I took botany and I'm guessing most people haven't. 😉
  • It's already glossed and wikilinked.

• In "destructive pest of spruce forest...", recommend pluralizing "spruce forests".
  • Done.

• Again, replace UK with United Kingdom.
  • Done.

• In Other materials, recommend replacing the comma after Aintree Racecourse with "at" or "in". "Aintree Racecourse in Liverpool to build fences..."
  • Done, both commas (as they're appositional).

• In In art, change to "Munch Museum in Oslo".
  • Done, but the usage was correct.

• "at the Moderna Museet"
  • Edited.

• "30-metre-tall"
  • Done.

User:Chiswick Chap: This article is also very well written. Please let me know when you have a chance to go through these, and I will do the source and image reviews as soon as I can. Let me know if you have any questions! Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:44, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Bgsu98: all done to date. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:43, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Image review (9/22/25)

Chiswick Chap: All images are appropriate and have suitable licenses and appropriate captions. However, only some of the images have alt-text. Please add alt-text to all of the images. Alt-text should not just be a word-for-word copy of the caption; it should be a description of the photo for someone who would be unable to view the photo. So, for example, the artwork at the end of the article, the alt-text should not be the name of the painting (sight-readers still read the captions), but should say something like "painting of spruce tree against mountain background" or something like that. Does that make sense?

Alt text is beyond the GA criteria. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

It is still good practice and I would encourage you to add it when you have a chance, but I certainly would not hold up a GA if that is the only outstanding concern. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:42, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Hopefully, I will be able to do the source review later today. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Source review (9/21/25)

• Random spot check of references checks out.
• Formatting of sources is consistent. I personally recommend wikilinking sources (such as newspapers), but that is a personal preference. I also recommend archiving sources, which is beyond the scope of the GA, but is still good practice. I will run the article through the archive bot for you.

User:Chiswick Chap: This article is very well written! I'm happy to pass this GA. I still encourage you to add alt-text to the images when you have a chance. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:45, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

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.