Talk:Fomes fomentarius/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Ucucha 20:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll also do one; I'll place comments here as I read through. Ucucha 20:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ucucha 20:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Are none of the taxonomic synonyms worth individual discussion?
 * As I'm sure you can see, there are a lot. I guess as I continue researching, I may come across some discussion, but, for now, I thought it better to discuss the taxonomic history, and just mention that there are a lot of taxonomic synonyms. The one I have come across most, Fome nigrescens, is mentioned in the prose further down. J Milburn (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "as well as on fruit-bodies growing on the south side of trees"—does that include those in southern Africa?
 * Hmm. In context it's pretty clear that European specimens are being discussed. I've clarified Northern Hemisphere; if you feel this would constitute original research, I will remove it altogether. J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does fomentariol merit a link?
 * If it grows optimally at 27–30 °C, how can it grow throughout Europe? Does it really reach into Lapland?
 * How exactly is it supposed to combat E. coli and Bacillus?
 * I've removed that note. Without context, it's pretty meaningless, and if I remember correctly, the source really didn't expand on it. J Milburn (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessary for GA, but what of the tag on the talk page asking for a mycobox?
 * A mycobox would be pretty useless for this species; the mycobox is designed for mushrooms. I'd rather free-up space for pictures and the like. J Milburn (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * >500 Web of Knowledge hits—I'm sure there is more that can be added, but the article appears "broad in its coverage" to me, comparable to many of our fungal FAs.
 * Definitely more that can be added- this is something I hope to take to FAC eventually. I felt that, for now, it covered the bases, as it were, and so could be promoted to GA. J Milburn (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to think I probably shouldn't have nominated this. Perhaps I should work on it until it feels more complete, then nominate for good article, and then the good article review can be used as a final "get ready" for FAC, rather than the half-way mark I'm using it as now... I appreciate your review, and I can certainly use a lot of what you have said. J Milburn (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to me to be at least close to meeting the GA criteria, but of course we can fail it if you wish. I'd be willing to do another review pre-FAC, and there may be certain other people willing to do the same. Ucucha 22:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best to fail it at this time so I can do some work on it and renominate it when it's more developed. That may be in a few days, that may not be for a while- I'll see how it goes. I've started rough work in a sandbox for now. Thanks for your efforts, and I apologise if you feel I have wasted your time. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll fail it now. It's not a waste of time if it helped improve the article; plus, it inspired me to create a better way to make collapsible synonyms lists (User:Ucucha/sandbox; it works now with User:Ucucha/collapse.js installed, except that the layout becomes funny). Ucucha 23:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)