Talk:Spot test (lichen)

Spot test (lichen) 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: March 6, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Fungi: Lichens Low‑importance

	Fungi portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Lichen task force (assessed as Top-importance).

"K-" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect K-. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#K- until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

Latest comment: 5 months ago8 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spot test (lichen)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 19:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd link function group at first mention, lots of people will have forgotten high school Ochem.

Done. Esculenta (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

"include Cladonia portentosa, which is C+ (yellow)" You don't mention yellow reactions to the C test earlier though, only red, orange-rose, and emerald-green.

Good point. I moved C. portentosa up as a example of an uncommon colour result, and replaced it with another common species with a more common colour result. Esculenta (talk)

You forgot to italicize para-phenylendiamine in the last paragraph (pun unintended).

Fixed. Esculenta (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

"the yellowish colour results from the fluorescence of lichexanthone" Should be cited.

Done. Esculenta (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Images are fine.
Refs are reliable and properly formatted.
Excellent work, barely even found anything to quibble about. I'll see which sources I can get my hands on and pass after spot-checking. AryKun (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks very much for taking on this review and the others. Am dealing with the brunt of a massive snowstorm, and will get to responses later when I'm done shovelling ... Esculenta (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, fixes are made per here. Esculenta (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Spot-checked a couple of journal articles cited and found no issues; will pass. AryKun (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )

3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Add topic