Talk:Myco-heterotrophy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Myco-heterotrophy has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
Myco-heterotrophy has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page. |
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
Myco-heterotrophy 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. |
||
| High | This article is on a subject of high-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. |
|||
 |
The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Peter G Werner (talk • email) |
Contents |
[edit] New article
I just finished writing this article. I realize it still needs citations - I wrote it largely from memory, but will go over my literature soon so that I can incorporate proper citations into the article. I have also searched through (English) Wikipedia and changed over references to plants as "saprophytes" to "myco-heterotrophs". Peter G Werner 01:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Name of article
It was a coin toss between Myco-heterotrophy (describing the relationship) and Myco-heterotroph (describing the organism). It seemed proper to emphasize the ecological relationship rather than just the parasitic partner, so I went with the former. (Also, "Myco-heterotrophy" got more Google hits.) If I was wrong, somebody could always just move the article. Peter G Werner 03:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] References
I just added references. At some point I suppose I should wikify them, though its not high on my to-do list. Basically, I'm not a big fan of "ref" format – its a real pain in the ass to edit, since you have to intersperse entire bibliographic citations into the text of the article, plus the reference list is no longer in alphabetical order and looks beaten to crap once you're done. Peter G Werner 06:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Good Article nomination has failed
The Good article nomination for Myco-heterotrophy has failed, for the following reason(s):
- I think this article is long enough to warrant breaking up into a couple of sections - it would be an aesthetic improvement over a large block of text. It would then need a short lead section. Otherwise, the content looks good - please renominate once sections have been added. Worldtraveller 12:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
- Err, this is still on the nomination list, did it get back here so quickly? I was going to pass it heh, it seems to have plenty of books and article things there at the bottom..... Homestarmy 03:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- I hadn't renominated it at the time you came by, but I have renominated it now, since I've made the changes suggested by Worldtraveller. Lots of links, its true – I hope its a kind of "one-stop shopping" for anybody who's interested in learning about the topic. Peter G Werner 05:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- Err, this is still on the nomination list, did it get back here so quickly? I was going to pass it heh, it seems to have plenty of books and article things there at the bottom..... Homestarmy 03:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Good article nomination passed
I think this is now GA material. I do recommend changing the references to the {{cite}} format, but that's not an official requirement so I don't feel it should hold the article back at this point. It would be a problem if the article ever reached FAC, though, and I personally think the new format is a lot easier to read and use. Otherwise, though, this meets all the criteria for Good Articles. I know very little about botany, but I found it interesting and understandable. Nice job. Kafziel 13:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Categories: Old requests for peer review | Wikipedia good articles | Wikipedia CD Selection-GAs | Uncategorized good articles | GA-Class Good articles | GA-class plant articles | Mid-importance plant articles | WikiProject Fungi articles | GA-Class Fungi articles | High-importance Fungi articles | Maintained articles | Expert contributions
