Talk:Alternaria japonica
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): QuasarHaru.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alternaria japonica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070130123212/http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/ to http://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Evaluation of content: This article has room for improvement. The one sentence that has been written is focused on the topic, and I can understand what it means. However, that sentence doesn't get into any detail about the organism. There are no sources listed which give any specific details, so the quality of the evidence is poor. The sources point to fungi databases, so they could be a good starting point for further research. No assumptions have been made about the topic thanks to a lack of detail. The article can be improved by adding any other information about the organism, such as what kind of fungus it is, where it is most commonly found, and what kind of disease it causes. Any evidence which indicates that it is, in fact, a pathogen would be useful. A picture of some kind would be very helpful, I will look for one to which I can obtain the rights.
Evaluation of quality: I would not say that there is an introduction, only one sentence without any detail. There are no headings or subheadings. Details about the life cycle of the fungus, its appearance, its preferred hosts, or anything else are missing. The article contains no images. There is a classification scheme at the right, which I will attempt to verify. The coverage is neutral and seems factual. One reference is a USDA website, which should be reliable because it is a government research organization. The other is a fungi classification database which is partially funded by the Kew Botanical Garden . I have no familiarity with the reputation of the website, but it seems reliable based on its funding source, which is another government research organization. QuasarHaru (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)