Talk:Antonín Vězda

Antonín Vězda has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 21, 2021. (Reviewed version).

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Fungi: Lichens Mid‑importance

	Fungi portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FungiWikipedia:WikiProject FungiTemplate:WikiProject FungiFungi articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Lichen task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is about a mycologist or someone who contributed to the field of mycology

Czech Republic Low‑importance

	Czech Republic portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Czech RepublicWikipedia:WikiProject Czech RepublicTemplate:WikiProject Czech RepublicCzech Republic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Antonín Vězda/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 13:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More lichenology! What a treat. I managed to get an article about a mycologist to FA status, but I sincerely doubt we have any good or featured articles about lichenologists. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The treat for me was coming on here and seeing three of my GAN submissions getting reviews, when I thought it might take months ... so thanks for that! Interesting you should mention Meinhard Moser, as that is the article I used as sort of a template to build the article on Finnish lichenologist Edvard August Vainio, which is currently at FAC. Esculenta (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen your FA nomination -- I will be sure to drop by this weekend. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1958, he was dismissed from his university position" It's strange in the lead to jump to straight into a comparatively late point in his career.

I've added a sentence to help ease this transition. Esculenta (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Described as a "universal lichen taxonomist"," I always get twitchy when I see a direct quote without a citation!

Changed the wording no it's no longer a quote. Esculenta (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry" -- could you name the institution? Or is that a free-standing organisation?

Done. Esculenta (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "forest worker" if not a forester?

The source makes this distinction, but without explanation, so I've simplified it. Esculenta (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You write about his address becoming well known before you write about his international career being launched. It just feels a little out-of-order.

Reworded this section to hopefully alleviate this issue. Esculenta (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Vězda was the editor of several extensive works of exsiccata" These are books, are they? Or are they just collections?

They are collections. One of the ones I've seen was issued in a big 3-ring binder with hard stock pages attached to packets of samples. Esculenta (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I suppose I've not heard "editor" used in that way. Would "curator" work? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty standard term in the field, but I reworded the text to avoid possible confusion. Esculenta (talk) 18:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As with the other GA review, I feel I need to ask about the small caps.

Changed to regular small. Esculenta (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boring question, but are all those species still recognised today? We know how these things can come and go...

When I looked them up at Index Fungorum, most were still accepted, but a few have switched genera. Esculenta (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing looks very good, and no worries with the images. Nice article! Josh Milburn (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you. I still have some foreign-language sources I haven't fully utilised yet, so I expect I'll be able to expand this a bit in the future. Esculenta (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to promote. Great work. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]