Talk:Human interactions with fungi/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 13:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I propose to take on this review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

First reading

 * We are talking here, I suppose, about man's relationship with fungi, how fungi have impacted on man and how man has made use of fungi, is that correct?
 * Yes.


 * The article is quite short. I am considering whether the sections on Fermentation and Food, for example, cover the topic sufficiently comprehensively to pass the criterion "The article covers the main aspects of the subject".
 * @Cwmhiraeth: We can say more, but I'm conscious of the fact that there are substantial articles on these topics, and wish to minimise overlap. I'd therefore say that the "main aspects" are the existence of these topics, i.e. man's long use of yeasts for bread and alcohol, and the long use of edible fungi and fermented foods. I'll reconsider if there are aspects of these that should be covered further, and would welcome suggestions.


 * Before I started this review, I made a list of topics I expected to be included, and not all are present, so I will leave further study of the article until you have commented on the points I raise above.
 * OK. I'll have limited availability between 20th and 29th so if this is still open then we should put it on hold.
 * Some topics that occurred to me were moulds and food spoilage, dry rot and wet rot of timber, fungal diseases of crop species, fungal diseases of humans and livestock, use of fungi in folk medicine and use of entomopathogenic fungi in pest control. Just some ideas! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, that broadens the scope from "culture" to "all interactions". Probably easier to defend with the wider sense, culture is a slippery term at the best of times.


 * moulds and food spoilage - done.


 * dry rot and wet rot of timber - done.


 * fungal diseases of crops - done.


 * fungal diseases of humans and livestock - done.


 * use of fungi in folk medicine - done.


 * use of entomopathogenic fungi in pest control - done.


 * In reference 18, John Ramsbottom needs disambiguating.
 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Cwmhiraeth - I've added sections as suggested. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Second reading

 * That was why I wanted to establish quite what the article was about. I realised after I had signed up to review it that I had looked at the nomination some time ago and rejected it on the grounds of lack of clarity of focus. Anyway, the article is looking much better now after your hard work yesterday, and I can find little to fault. Just a few points.
 * Many thanks.


 * "The fruiting bodies of some larger species" - The addition of "of fungi" would be helpful here.
 * Done.


 * The words "such as" appear four times in the end part of the second paragraph of the lead.
 * Fixed.


 * "This, while useful in composting, ..." - "This" is an unhelpful pronoun here.
 * Fixed.


 * "bootstrap-like rhizomorphs in the soil." - What is a bootstrap like?
 * Said strap-shaped.


 * That's all for now. I think the article is much improved. Do you? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Cwmhiraeth: Yes indeed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

GA criteria

 * The article is well written and complies with MOS guidelines on prose and grammar, structure and layout.
 * The article uses many reliable third-party sources, and makes frequent citations to them. I do not believe it contains original research.
 * The article covers the main aspects of the subject and remains focussed.
 * The article is neutral.
 * The article is stable.
 * The images are relevant and have suitable captions, and are either in the public domain or properly licensed.


 * Final assessment - I believe this article reaches the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for the useful review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)