Talk:Brodoa oroarctica

Brodoa oroarctica 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 20, 2024. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Fungi: Lichens Mid‑importance 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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Lichen task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

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

Nominator: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 15:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Just-a-can-of-beans (talk · contribs) 19:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I will take up this review. A cursory scan of the page looks promising. An initial comment I have is that the Conservation section could use some more internal links to other Wikipedia pages, but this certainly isn't something I would fail the nomination for. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 19:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will return to complete section 2b later, as it will be the most time-consuming by far. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! I added 3 links to the Conservation section. Awaiting further suggestions for improvements. Esculenta (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have found no further points needing improvement. Nice page. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.	The language is very technical in some places, but not overly or inappropriately so. It is also unlikely that this page will be viewed by many people who would be unable to read at this level. Therefore, I feel it is "appropriately broad". Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I feel there should be a sub-heading under the Taxonomy section where the page discusses the common names of the lichen, perhaps simply titling this subsection Common Names. This information may be the most pertinent to some people reading the page, and it would be handy if they could quickly navigate to it. That said, this is just my opinion, and the page certainly meets established Wikipedia guidelines for item 1b. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Reference list is present. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	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).	After reviewing the major sources as well as a spot check of a couple auxiliary sources, everything seems to be in good order. You've also done a commendably good job of transforming the sometimes jumbled and poorly written language of research articles, some as old as my father, into legible and understandable prose. Well done. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	Diverse sources and no sign of original research. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issues. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The page clearly covers relevant bases, and in fact exceeds expectations for this type of organism. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Everything seems within scope. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Excellent tone, though it might be hard to be biased on this subject. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.	Images are cited appropriately.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	To be frank, I'm impressed that you managed to get multiple high-quality images, showcasing a diverse range of features of the organism. Excellent work. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass. This is quite a Good Article. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]