Talk:Omphalotus nidiformis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Omphalotus nidiformis has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment. | |||
 |
An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on May 5, 2007. | |||
|
||||
 |
Omphalotus nidiformis is supported by WikiProject Fungi, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Fungi. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. |
||
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Mid | This article is on a subject of mid-importance within mycology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
Omphalotus nidiformis is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| GA |
This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] earlir comment
Is the spore print white as stated in the text or yellow as stated in the taxobox ? [Please delete when corrected.]
[edit] Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of December 10, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Yes, but see comments below.
- 2. Factually accurate?: Yes, however a citation is necessary for the paragraph that describes the physical appearence of this fungi.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Yes
- 4. Neutral point of view?: No problem
- 5. Article stability? Stable
- 6. Images?: Ok
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Ruslik (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments:
1) I think that the single sentence second paragraphs in the lead can be merged with the first paragraph.
-
- (done)
2) The lead says "...leads to very severe cramps, vomiting, and diarrhea". However the last section says "There is no diarrhea and patients recover ..." So does it cause diarrhea or not ?
-
- (aha - original ref says no diarrhoea)
3) It may be better to convert the last ref (Griffiths, K (1985)) into the inline format and use it where appropriate.
Ruslik (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I will promote the article to GA. Ruslik (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thankyou. I am frustrated as I'd really love to get enough text to get these photos on Bioluminescence which I took last autumn and was really proud of onto the page...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Original account
The original account of Drummond appeared in Hooker's Journal of Botany - April 1842. Would be good to find...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Confusing sentence
What does this sentence mean?
It can be detected at night a faint whitish eerie glow can be seen at the base of trees in sclerophyll forests.
I have removed it for now because I don't understand what it's trying to convey, and the parts I do understand might be incorrect (I have only seen the glow described as green, not white). -kotra (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
