Enchylium polycarpon is currently a Biology and medicine good article nominee. Nominated by X ( talk) at 03:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer. Short description: Species of fungus |
Enchylium polycarpon was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 28, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Xkalponik ( talk · contribs)
Reviewer: Snoteleks ( talk · contribs) 17:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I will get to this shortly. —Snoteleks ( Talk) 17:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of March 28, 2024, compares against the six good article criteria:
The article has layout issues, but the more concerning issues are with the references. Solely from the state of the references, the article fails two of the five GA criteria, which results in an immediate failure. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns or doubts you may have about the nomination and the reference formatting that is required for WP:TOL articles.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. —Snoteleks ( Talk) 19:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@
Snoteleks, Hi. Thanks for the review. I'll address and fix each issue promptly. However, there seems to be a misjudgment. Others that use cite web templates, titled "Altitudinal distribution (6 states)", "Poleotolerance" and such, link to nearly empty websites that have no relation to the lichen species, and thus cannot be used as valid references..
FYI, these are indeed related to the lichen species. These show the values of these chemical tests and interpret what value means. The values are mentioned in the parent source
[1]. At the end of each value data, they link to "info" which opens a new tab. I used those individual info tabs as sources instead.
Another thing is, In addition, only one reference uses the cite book template, and links to an archive.org item that apparently does not even exist, or at least has no author, date or ISBN, therefore it is not an existing book.
These are actually herbarium data CSV files. The wiki reference converter made the error using the book template. I'd fix that.
Last but not least, no peer-reviewed scientific articles are used as references. Taxonomic databases and information systems are not sufficient alone to sustain the entirety of an article this large.
While I do not disagree with this, though I'd like to mention that the ITALIC or similar databases used in the article are widely used in scientific peer-reviewed journals themselves. Also, the different herbarium data used are no exception. However, I'll go on to add multiple more peer-reviewed references.
The lead contains pieces of information that do not appear in the main text. For instance, the common name, "shaly jelly lichen", has no record or reference in the main text. It did actually. In the taxonomic revision sub-section. However, I've moved it to the etymology section now,
Thanks for the overall review. I've had my first GA recently and this was my second nomination. I'd do everything on my part to fix the addressed issues and make it pass as well. Regards. X ( talk) 22:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Xkalponik ( talk · contribs) 03:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Wolverine XI ( talk · contribs) 08:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Very well written. Just a few few things to address before I promote this one. Wolverine XI ( talk to me) 19:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)