Wikipedia:Peer review/Amanita thiersii/archive1

Amanita thiersii

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think a peer review will help me make more improvements in it.

Thanks, Sainsf <^> (talk) 04:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: Rules for peer review limit nominations from a single editor to one per day. Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Big problem here is I discovered copy and paste plagiarism in the article. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

• This source http://www.mushroomexpert.com/amanita_thiersii.html is copied word for word for at least two paragraphs of this article. See the paragraphs beginning and ending In 1978 Skip and Sherry Kay (future founders of the Kaw Valley Mycological Association) ... named in honor of Dr. Harry Thiers, fit the mushroom perfectly. I am removing this from the article next.
• A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow - there are 40 FAs on fungi at Category:FA-Class Fungi articles which seem like they would include some good models
• Two dab links found here that need to be fixed
• Biggest problem I see is references. First off there are parts that have no refs and need some. For example, 2 of 3 paragraphs in History and discovery have zero refs and three of four paragraphs in Description need refs too. As does the Distribution and habitat section.
• My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
• Refs need to provide more information. For example, internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
• The refs that are there need to be relaible and meet WP:RS What makes pluto.njcc.com a reliable source? What references does it cite or where is its editoral oversight?
• Avoid contractions like this Gills: They're crowded to subdistant, free, rather narrow to broad.
• Make sure the lead meets WP:LEAD standards.
• The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article
• Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself *My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way
• Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most of this article is copy/pasted from two websites. I have placed a {{db-g12}} tag on the article and hopefully we can clear the history and start fresh. Sasata (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)