This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Fungi for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Puccinia mariae-wilsoniae
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Sasata, thank you for promoting Giant eland to GA. Well, currently I am working on Dromedary, may be posting it soon for GAN. If you like you may help me with any literature you have. It is already becoming an informative article!--Sainsf<^>Talk all words05:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
A Web of Knowledge search for Camelus dromedarius pulls up over 8000 sources; most of it is technical stuff that's not really appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Any way you could narrow the search to something you're specifically looking for? Sasata (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thurovia
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Sasata, I noticed you created the article Thurovia, which is tagged for merging with Thurovia triflora. They do appear to be duplicates, but they seem to make conflicting claims about what the genus name is. I'm happy to carry out this merge myself once the matter is cleared up. Feel free to reply to me here or to my request for help at WikiProject Plants. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi Sasata! I was wondering if you would be able to send me the chapter on cabbage from Transgenic Crops, Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry, as you did with lettuce? Cabbage is my new project, after the success of taking lettuce to FA! It's still in sandbox form at the moment, but I'm hoping to get it moved to the mainspace within the next week or so, hopefully in better shape (i.e., more complete) than the lettuce one was when I moved it! Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
thanks for your work on Barbeyella minutissima!. I will begin to work on the probably last fungus translated from a German featured version, but I am not sure what is the best time to do that in regard to WikiCup. Do you want me to translate it during the last round or the current? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 19:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Anytime that works for you is ok with me; I'm more or less done my vacation and back on a regular editing schedule. When you go live with the last article I can copyedit/expand it within a day or two. Sasata (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I see a quirky hook for Tricholoma vaccinum
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
That's really quite regrettable; we can get around potential problems like this with license reviews, but I'm not sure that there's much that can be done here. Of course, I have no doubt that they were released, but there's potentially a dangerous precedent to be set. With the featured picture, it seems like a fair guess that people checked the licensing, and the fact JJ uploaded his own version shows that he will have checked... But the other one is definitely problematic. I note Rcej didn't even make a generic "licenses check out" comment in his GA review. Also, I've checked the Internet archive, and there's nothing there. I think contacting the authors may be the best option- see if they are willing to "release" the images, or at least confirm that they did once release them. Without that, I'm not sure that this would get through FAC, as, otherwise, all we have are vague assurances that it was probably checked. Sorry I don't have some magic way around this! J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I think, if email is not an option, the best way would be to have some kind of centralised discussion somewhere (perhaps on Commons) where you may be able to get some kind of consensus that the images are OK- a common sense versus procedure-type situation. One possible venue could even be at FPC. J Milburn (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Your requests
Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Looks like that issue of the Naturaliste is available at the botanical garden (which is more practical for me than the university library, as I can edit at the former, but not the latter). I'll try to drop there this week (also I'll give Phallus indusiatus a look asap). Circéus (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
As a side note, for quebec distribution you can probably rely on Mycoquebec.org (though it's in French). It's got input behind the scenes by professional/published mycologists, and even offline discussion with experts outside Quebec, so i consider easily as, if not more reliable than MushroomObserver.com Circéus (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
So I've started with a pass at the references, and I'd like to know which style should I standardize the short refs to? "Doe (year), page" or "Doe year, page"? Circéus (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Done – note I changed the common name of B. regius in the hook. Not the most earth-shattering of hooks, but it's better than anything I could come up with! Sasata (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Podoserpula
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
When I took on the review of Barbeyella minutissima, I expected that the person who responded would be Kürbis who nominated the article for GA. I am well aware that you know a great deal more about slime moulds than me and are much more experienced in writing GA and FA articles, so that making suggestions for improvement is rather like a penguin providing lessons on flight to a seagull! So, if you disagree with things I suggest, you had better take no notice of what I say. Although I have not yet considered the other GA criteria, I am not expecting to find much amiss with the article.
Well, Kürbis kindly agreed to let me tag on to his GAN after I found some additional sources and expanded the article. I don't really know a lot about slime moulds, but at any rate, all of your suggestions for prose improvements have been helpful. I will consider taking on the amphibian GAN, but should really finish off another one I've started first, and I should also really complete my GAN of malaria, before I exhaust the kind reviewer's patience :) I am a fan of amphibians (worked a bit on Mark's Thompson's article Long-toed salamander to help bring it to GA), and will take the review in a week or so if no-one else gets there first. Sasata (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, that would be helpful. I'll carry on with this slime mould review when you have decided whether to add some background information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
bioluminescent fungi
Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
I'll be happy to have a look through it. Probably not before tomorrow or Wednesday though. I'm slightly more busy than usual this week. Circéus (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Having pored over it a little (focusing mostly on the prose part): intro needs a complete rewrite and split for a "bioluminescence in fungi" intro section. An exemple of a serious problem: it contradict itself right off by saying that biolum provides antioxidant protection and then stating that "the function of fungal bioluminescence has not been established" (this being because there's a failure to distinguish the biolum phenomenon and the biochemical process that causes it). I'll do a rewrite myself. In the meantime, I strongly suspect that the ref for the Lucentipes lineage comment is second hand (Oliviera & al. doesn't seem to include much phylogenetic info but I can't see more than a few graphs and the abstract), so can you try and dig up the ref, assuming it's not to something in press? Circéus (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually I'd like to see Oliviera & al., 'cause Matheny has nothing to do with either taxa. I'm going to assume it's cited to indicate the clade is not named, not to any paper that established it since Desjardins & al. (2010) has this in the intro (emphasis mine, author citations removed for legibility): "and an unnamed lineage (including Gerronema viridilucens and Mycena lucentipes; Perry and Desjardin unpubl)." Circéus (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I've chosen to work on it in my sandbox to avoid disrupting the article. As to Bisporella citrina, the writing could be improved a little, but is basically accurate. Circéus (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
On deeper looking, we have some serious taxonomic problems. We cannot seriously list species in genera (Dictyopanus) that the encyclopedia does not recognize and that may not be considered good taxa. I have hardly found anything about those two taxon for the last 40 years! Burdsall & Miller (Mycotaxon 7(3):511-514. 1978.) notes that the type of D. foliicolus seems lost. And the name was never transferred (as far as I can tell) to Panellus. Similarly we mention Prunulus, but don't list any species from that genera, while a bunch of other genera (Dictyopanus, Filoboletus, lampteromyces, Nothopanus, Pleurotus and Poromycena) are in the list, but not assigned to any lineage. That looks pretty sloppy for an article aimed at Featured status. Circéus (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Given the taxonomic second thoughts mentioned, I'm putting the finer points of revision (i.e. the references: I've done most of the prose rewriting I wanted to) on the backburner until some/most has been sorted through. Circéus (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I knew there was going to be some problems with the taxon names. I'll work on these as much as I can, but probably won't be able to put serious time into it until November. Sasata (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Boletellus russellii
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 10 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Endogone, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that species in the fungal genus Endogone are important in the ecology of plant succession in sand dunes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Endogone. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, Sasata. This is about the article Giant eland, which you promoted as GA. Now I have time, and can start work on it to make it an FA. I would be glad to have your help, as this shall be my first FAC attempt. If you have time (I see you are busy the whole year with the WikiCup championship!) then you can guide me with this. --Sainsf<^>Talk all words13:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
I'd be happy to help you out. I recommend submitting the article to peer review, to get more eyes on the prose. I'll do another lit search search soon to ensure there's nothing important that's been missed. Sasata (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Albaflavenone
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 19 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colus hirudinosus, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the foul-smelling greenish-brown slime in the lattice of the fungus Colus hirudinosus attracts insects that help disperse its spores? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Colus hirudinosus. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for your long-term committment to the good article nomination of malaria. I really think we're making great progress on improving the quality of this important article. Let me know if you think I'm being overly nit-picky. I guess it's entirely possible I'm bringing up things that aren't typically dealt with in a GA review, but I figure we've got a good thing going. Let me know if it could be improved. And still, I don't mind the slow going, but I can accelerate things if you'd like. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure if I could have gotten a better reviewer :) It's an important article, and I don't mind taking the time to get it right. My wife (a senior resident) has lined up a couple of subject-matter experts who've graciously offered to review it when it's ready (probably after peer review, but before FAC), so I'd like it to be in the best shape possible before then. And thank-you for putting up with my slow responses; I try to juggle a lot here on the 'pedia (including my time-consuming guilty pleasure), and I sometimes have to do quite a bit of background reading before I feel confident enough to make a change in the malaria article (I don't really have any particular expertise in the subject, just a science background). Sasata (talk) 18:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Perfect, and thanks. And I was going to offer to try and line up a subject matter expert for you too... But the offer stands. =) Once we get to that point, I'd actually like to try for you, because it could establish some new contact avenues for me or help start a useful avenue for high-quality medical articles to receive feedback on Wikipedia in general. Biosthmors (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I was thinking about DYK because I just found Medicines for Malaria Venture, which is unsourced. Now if someone completely rewrites the article, and sources it well with one edit then they don't meet the eligibility criteria. But could that same content qualify under 1. (d? I guess it would have to be done in user space, and then one would have to find an administrator to speedy delete before a move. And the admin would have to see that it obviously improves the article. Or, can someone make an edit to "chop it", for a minute, to remove everything but a sentence that demonstrates notability (because the content is problematic and unsourced WP:V) and then post the rewritten version? Then can they get an expansion. There's gotta be a way to reward people for completely rewriting and sourcing articles that clean up. Maybe at Wikipedia:Dyk#Eligibility_criteria under New there could be a sentence like, "Completely rewriting an article that previously met the criteria for a good article quickfail are also considered 'new'." Just wondering about this. I'm sure some aspects of what I'm saying have been discussed before, but I'd rather ask you than dig for a long time, if you don't mind. Biosthmors (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
I've seen a few cases like this discussed at DYK over the years. Expanding and resourcing existing poorly-sourced (or completely non-sourced, in this case) content, unfortunately, doesn't qualify for any exemptions. I see you've placed a verification tag on the article. If no-one responds in about a week, our policies allow you rip out the unsourced text, and then you can plop in your userspace draft (as you proposed; I've seen this suggestion given by DYK regulars when posed a similar question on the talk page). Or, if your draft ends up being over 13095 characters (or thereabouts) it would qualify anyway. You could suggest amending the eligibility criteria on the talk page, but I've seen similar suggestions shot down in the past (for better or worse, the emphasis is on new content). Sasata (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. Well then maybe I don't want to change any eligibility criteria. Maybe what would be best is just adding some prose and clarifing the meaning (even if most of the text is in a note at the bottom of the page). I want others to know there is an avenue to get a DYK for articles like this, because it wasn't clear to me. And FYI I don't think I'll end up rewriting this article, but knowing I could get a DYK for doing so makes it more likely. Am I understanding you right, and does the approach I describe sound reasonable (in that you may support something like this or you think others would)? Biosthmors (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think your approach is reasonable, and would be supported by (at least some) DYK regulars. Here's a couple of links to somewhat related discussions from the past year: 1, 2 (you could probably find more by searching the archives). Sasata (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
POTD notification
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.
If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Sasata. I notice that Malaria has been on the GA Nom list since May ... quite a long 2-week period. Further, the GA review page doesn't seem to contain a GA review.
Hmmm, I've got a few multihooks already that aren't on that board. Anyway, I'm prepping a couple more that will blow this octahook out of the water (if I can get my lazy ass in gear in the next few weeks). Sasata (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have reviewed and approved your eight article Cortinarius DYK nomination though I had some reservations about the articles. Thinking about it afterwards, you only stated that you had reviewed five articles, but never mind.
Would you care to comment on my Frog FAC. I nominated the article a week ago but it is suffering from lack of interest. I hope it is in better shape than Bivalvia originally was because I think I have learned from your helpful guidance in that FAC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for reviewing the hook. Per here: "H4: Where hooks have more than one new or expanded article, there is no consensus whether an article-for-article or hook-for-hook QPQ is required. An article-for-article review is encouraged, but a hook-for-hook review is acceptable." In general, though, for my multihooks I've been reviewing more to help with throughput. As I'm sure you understand, October will be a busy month, but I will certainly review frog if it hasn't passed already by the end of October ;) (p.s. you may get more reviewers inclined to look at your nom if you review some of the other candidates at FAC) Sasata (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I quite understand your point of view. I'm not sure how competent I am at reviewing other FACs, and as you say, detailed scrutiny takes time, something that is in short supply this month. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Peziza domiciliana
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
What you say is true. He promised to contribute further to Frog and then went off on a field trip, then moved house and had no internet connection, etc. I told him I intended to name him as co-nominator and he did not object. If you would like to jointly nominate Amphibian with me I could withdraw it from FAC now. However, time is running out with regard to the Cup, and it would need to be put up for FAC again in the next few days, so you would have to do some work on it pretty soon. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I obviously have a conflict of interest here, so I don't want to unduly influence your decisions. I could work on the amphibian article, but I have another mushroom article ready for FAC as soon as my current nom is finished. (... and I have to do some more reviews too; I try to do 3–4 thorough reviews for every nom I submit but am lagging behind now ...) Perhaps it would be a good idea to inform FAC director GrahamColm of the background situation and see what his opinion is? Sasata (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I will do what you suggest and refer the matter to GrahamColm. However, if you do choose to join me nominating Amphibian I would be pleased, and you could still do your mushroom article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind working on the amphibian article with you if the time frame weren't so compressed. There's no way I could contribute in a few days the work you have put into the article in the past few months, and adding my name to the FAC wouldn't be justified (my original question was more of a hypothetical "what if" to illustrate why I thought adding Mark's name to the Frog FAC was unwarranted for a dozen or so edits and some PR commentary). I wish you success with the amphibian FAC (and I will review it when all this is over), but just don't think it's right to have two simultaneous FACs on a very thin pretense (i.e., following the letter, and not the spirit of the dual nom/co-nom policy). From past experience(s), I really hope to avoid final-round drama in this year's WikiCup! Sasata (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. I have been in communication with GrahamColm and the Amphibian FAC has been deleted. I knew that nominating Frog in that way was a bit "iffy". However, I am disappointed, as you stated on my talk page "would you mind then if I worked on either the amphibian or the frog article for a few days myself and add myself to the FAC?" and it was on this basis that I withdrew it. You now seem to have changed your mind about this but I would point out that success with Amphibian would probably score you many more points than your mushroom article. And as for equality of edits, that is not necessary for a joint nomination. I was involved in editing Pelican in a minor way and Casliber offered to include my name as FAC co-nominee for that article but I declined, not needing extra points in that earlier round. :) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Equality of edits may not be needed by the letter of the rules, but I wouldn't want my name on the FAC unless I was responsible for a significant portion of the work. I will work on the article (as we discussed before, I'm a salamander fan), but I doubt I'll be able to do enough in the next short while to warrant a co-nom. Sasata (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. Grapple X (submissions) currently leads, followed by Sasata (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.
It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!
There are currently 15,862 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 345 unreviewed articles. Out of 439 total nominations, 24 are on hold, 66 are under review, and 4 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article! Even just reviewing one will help!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Social sciences and society (80 articles), Sports and recreation (70 articles), Music (63 articles), Theatre, film and drama (52 articles), and History (41 articles). Please consider reviewing articles within these sections.
There are currently 13 articles up for reassessment at Good Article Reassessment. Please help out and go to WP:GAR and review an article! Remember that anyone can review articles that are listed under "Community Reassessment" even if another user has already listed their opinion...the more opinions, the better!
Member News
There are currently 222 members of WikiProject Good Articles! Welcome to all the new members that joined during the past 17 months! If you aren't yet part of WikiProject Good Articles and interested in joining WikiProject Good Articles, go here and add you name. Everyone is welcomed!
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
If you haven't done so already, please remember to add your name to this list if you are still interested/active with this WikiProject. If you are no longer interested/active you don't need to add your name anywhere, you're name will be moved into a "inactive participant" list at the beginning of November. Inactive users will not receive future newsletters from this WikiProject via their talk page.
GA Task forces
There is currently not much going on at this time but there is a very large backlog. Until the next backlog elimination drive, please help reduce the number of nominations by reviewing articles and helping other reviewers that may need second opinions.
Thanks to everyone who committed some time to help reduce the nominations backlog during the June-July 2012 backlog elimination drive. Most barnstars have been given out but there are still a few left. Participants that haven't gotten a barnstar yet should get it soon.
Possible Fall/Winter 2012 Backlog Elimination Drive
A discussion is currently being held on the WikiProject's talk page on weather another eliminations drive should take place within the next few months as the last one proved to be extremely successful. Please take the time to go to the the talk page and include your opinion on if you would be interested in taking part in a Fall/Winter 2012 elimination drive.
Good Articles of the Month
Each month, 5 random good articles will be choose to be featured here as the good articles of the month.
Having references included in articles is one of the most important aspects to a good article, let alone Wikipedia! Without them, no one would ever know what is true and what is false and Wikipedia probably wouldn't be where it is today. So this month, I will talk about how to check for references, how reliable they are, and so on and so forth.
The first thing to do when reviewing an nominee is to do a quick scan of the article. One of the things to look for is if the article has references! If you don't see a list at the bottom of the article page, quick-fail it.[2] For newcomers, quick-failing is failing an article when you spot a problem before actually conducting a full review. If you do find a list of references (and in most cases you will) make sure to look through each and every one. If you want to save some time, use this tool as it will tell you if there are any problematic references in the article you are reviewing.
Next, check the reliability and type of the references/sources. In terms of the type of reference, check to see how many primary and/or secondary sources are included. Primary sources are the ones published by the subject of the article. For example, if the subject of the article has to do with the iPhone 4s and the source is published by Apple, it is considered a primary source. Secondary sources are those not published by the subject of the article (or in close relation to it). Newspapers are examples of secondary sources and considered one of the better types to include in the article (not saying primary sources are bad). If you find that most/all of the references are primary sources, notify the nominator about this issue(s) and place the article on hold once you have completed the review. Only in the event that a secondary source can't be found as a replacement, then the primary source can remain. If there is a good mix of primary and secondary sources, that is perfect and no references need to be changed.
Now, reliability. Forums are generally not considered reliable and some blog's may not be reliable either. Newspapers, most sources published by the subject, some blogs, etc. are considered reliable. If you don't know wether the source is reliable, ask for a second opinion. For more info about how to identify wether a reference is reliable or not, visit this article.
Finally, one of the more basic things to look for is that every statement in the article has at least one reference! The only case that a statement doesn't need a reference is when it is common sense that the statement is defiantly true and/or in the case where the statement can't be challenged, as per what Wikipedia says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation."
From the Editor
After a long 18 month hiatus, the third volume of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter is here! Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue of the newsletter here or on the editors talk page.
Also, Happy Halloween...in advance!!!
PLEASE READ: If you do not wish to receive future WikiProject Good Articles newsletter's on your talk page, please remove your self from this list. If you are viewing this newsletter from the WikiProject Good Articles page or on someone else's talk page and want to receive future newsletters on your talk page, please add your name to the list linked above.
^Before quick-failing the article, verify that one of the several referencing templates is correctly placed at the bottom of the article. If the template is not placed, try to place it to see if references are displayed. If this proof returns no references, then proceed to quick-failing.
Improving Wikipedia one article at a time since 2005!
Delivered October 3, 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter any longer, please remove your name from this list.
→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page. → Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Xylobolus frustulatus
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 7 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Amanita zambiana, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the edible African species Amanita zambiana is sometimes called the "Christmas mushroom" because it is most abundant in December and early January? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Amanita zambiana. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Yes, the gills on the underside of the cap, and the stem. In the future, if you find a bunch like that, uproot a couple and lay them beside an intact specimen for a more informative photo. If there's any young fruit bodies, put them in a group pic as well. General geographical location might help in some cases (i.e. eastern or western US), as well as a few words about habitat (in a forest, on a roadside, on a lawn, nearby trees, etc.). Sasata (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, some jerk decided to trample them in the last 18 or so hours so I turned some of them over, moved them together, and took the following photo. They're between a residential road and concrete sidewalk. A tree is about 7 feet away and some shrubs about 6 feet away. Will email you a bit more. File:Golfball Shroom 2012-10-08.jpg. PumpkinSkytalk16:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, this got buried in my 10,000+ item watchlist. I think it's Macrolepiota procera; compare with other photos of the species here. If there's still some specimens around to examine, you can help confirm this by smelling the old fruit bodies to see if they have an odor of maple syrup, and seeing if you can move the ring on the stipe up and down. Sasata (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
No worries, I figured it had gotten "buried". It's been raining a lot so they're pretty much trashed now. I really appreciate the help. I'll categorize and rename on Commons now. Thanks!PumpkinSkytalk22:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Appressorium
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Wow, I saw the copy edit you did on the park article I wrote. Such a great job! Much appreciated and thank you very much! :D RexRowanTalk09:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Do you want to have another look at this nomination now that the nominator has added more citations? Im a little concerned about plagiarism in the Evolution section.--Kevmin§01:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:MEDRS, claims for medicinal efficacy need to be cited to secondary sources, especially for featured articles, which have the highest standards of referencing. We can add these studies once they have been discussed in a review article. Sasata (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I added primary and secondary references to the UK fMRI study yet you still removed it quoting the rule about secondary sources. Please explain how my submission does not conform?
Julian Brown (talk) 22:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Sasata! I hope you are not busy, could you return to the GA review quickly? It has remained like that for about a week, and only very few issues are left. Better have it finished soon. Sainsf<^>Talk all words08:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Many thanks for your vote of support at WT:DYK; If you have any time to give feedback on the article, I would be grateful, whether a full review for DYK or just your first thoughts. I have paid attention to SYNTH and OR by referencing each sentence in the article. However many of those REFs were deleted by a previous reviewer, Sionk, after they had satisfied him of no-synth, no-OR, and no-essay; that left the article reading better stylistically, but looking like it does now. I have reworded entirely that paragraph which was raised as an issue. Further comments and my humble apologies for that one over-sight, are at the DYK nomination page.. Thanks again. ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs14:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if you misinterpreted my flippant comment as a vote of support – my personal relationship skills just aren't very good. I think the article would be better if it were stripped of all the necessary headers and subheaders, quotes, bullet points, etc., down to about 1 or 2 paragraphs of relevant material that can be reliably sourced. It's nowhere near being ready for an appearance on the front page. Sasata (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Ah, understood. Thanks for the useful feedback on the content. I'll start trimming it down as a draft in my user-space, then ask for feedback on the article's Talk page when the new draft is ready for review. Yes, I am not expecting DYK for it at all now. The time limit will be stale by the time I have finished (and I don't think 5-times-smaller is one of the criteria :-) Thanks again. ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ talk ◊ contribs15:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Sasata. You have new messages at Talk:Leccinum manzanitae/GA1. Message added 18:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 20 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Agrocybe putaminum, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the once rare mulch fieldcap mushroom has become more common due to the increasing use of woodchip mulch in ornamental flower beds? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Agrocybe putaminum. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You recently reviewed the article Pictor and its hook for DYK. However, the reference that the hook is tied to, and the text of our article, stated that that galaxy cluster had a mass of 800 trillion suns, and somehow this was translated into the galaxy cluster having 800 trillion stars. The hook is not correct, a mass of 800 trillions suns does not equate to a count of 800 trillion stars each with the mass of our sun, and no other matter in the system. Please be more careful reading the hooks. Thanks. -Fjozk (talk) 01:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 21 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hericium abietis, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the edible bear's head fungus (pictured) once grew to a mass of about 100 lb (45 kg)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hericium abietis. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
On 22 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vulpicida, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that according to Swedish peasant folklore, the lichen Vulpicida(pictured), when consumed, kills foxes but not dogs or wolves? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vulpicida. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The Expert Barnstar
I hereby award you the Expert Barnstar for your outstanding contributions to fungus-related topics. This award is given to a few people who are regarded experts in one or several particular fields. Congrats and keep up your excellent work :)!--Tomcat(7)13:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Coccomyces dentatus that you recently nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Sasata! thanks for your review. Currently I am focusing on Amanita gemmata, which seems ready for being a GA. (I feel it is much developed as A. ceciliae.) I am just going to add some more information about similar species, else it appears comprehensive. As you have significantly contributed to it, I wished to have your advice about the article as well. Sainsf<^>Talk all words07:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure, it's in the GA range. Put it in the queue, and I'll add my name as a co-nominator. I still have some stuff to add (and another copyedit is always helpful) but should be able to get this done before a reviewer gets there. Sasata (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Tuctoria
On 28 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tuctoria, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the grass genus names Tuctoria and Orcuttia are anagrams? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 28 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Orcuttia, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the grass genus names Tuctoria and Orcuttia are anagrams? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
WikiProject Good Articles - Participant Clean-up (Final Call)
You are receiving this message because you have not added your name to the list of active WikiProject Good Articles participants. Though you may have recived the past two messages sent out in September and October, some users may have had that message archived before coming online to read it and therefore never saw it. If you are deeming yourself inactive with the WikiProject please disregard this message as your name will be moved to an "inactive participant" list at the end of the clean-up. If you are still active with the WikiProject, please be sure to include your name on this list. The deadline to add your name to the list (if you are still active) is November 1, 2012. This will be the last message sent out before the deadline which is in 2 days. Thank-you.--EdwardsBot
Disambiguation link notification for October 30
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi Sasata! I've responded to the majority of your comments on the GAN and am working on the last one. I do have a couple questions/responses, it'd be great if you could take another look. Thanks for the great review! Keilana|Parlez ici22:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
fungi stubs
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.