Talk:Cephalotheca foveolata

If there are no synonyms for your fungus, you can remove the box; Could replace with strain type (if there is one) or input Cephalotheca faveolata into the synonym box I see your subheadings are the authors you’re referencing, which is a good way to organize notes from your sources. At this point, you should consider replacing your current subheadings with topics specific for your fungus. Consider: Physiology (metabolites), mechanisms of pathology (symptoms of infection, # of cases recorded, opportunistic, etc.), habitat and ecology, growth and morphology (Yaguchi 2006), taxonomy and history (where it was identified), etc. Under Lu 2015, you could specify ‘other environmental matter’ just so readers have an idea of what you mean by 'others'. Under Pedromo 2011, as you’re writing out the final draft, you could explain how P. obovatum and your fungus are similar. Don’t forget that before you list shortened P. obovatum, should first introduce its complete scientific name, which also needs to be italicized. Under Suh 2005, it might be confusing to readers not educated on the topic what D1/D2 is, you should consider linking a wiki article to that or to 28S rRNA Overall, all points made seem to be of a neutral POV, and not persuading anyone into accepting certain ideas Although a lot of information was found from sources Lu and Yaguchi, there’s still an overall good balance of the different sources cited! You also used good sources, which all seem to be scientific articles, or case studies. Books are one of the better sources, you could consider looking for content from books I'm not sure if the source Tsang 2017 is an article, book, etc. I think you might need to complete referencing for that There seems to be minimal information from Sutton 2008. After skimming through the source, the authors describe cleistotheca as dark and ciliated, which you could incorporate under subheading Morphology.. They also described the ascospores as hyaline to brown, which you could incorporate under morphology as well. You could consider linking wiki articles to certain words, just so readers can click on it if they are not sure what it is (ex. Bcl-2, amphotericin B, 28S rRNA, etc.)Kikikhoun (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

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.

---

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

Nominator: Esotericorangepeel (talk · contribs) 13:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: The Herald (talk · contribs) 16:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 24, 2024, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: No. The lede is almost non existent. No MOS is followed and the article is terribly undersourced with very few inline cites.

2. Verifiable?: Neutral.

3. Broad in coverage?: This is the major reason for the fail. The article barely makes it the criteria and not at all broad in it's coverage.

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes.

5. Stable?: Yes.

6. Images?: Yes.

Sadly, this is going to be a quick fail. The article requires a very thorough analysis and I urge the (future) nominator to get familiar with the good article criteria, especial the 3rd one. We need more information on the species, the relevance, the history and the further details. Kindly refer to other GAs on the topic. Thanks and happy editing.

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.— The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2024 (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.