Talk:Mythicomyces/GA1

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Sasata in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 20:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'll take this article for review. At first glance it looks great (as always!), but I should have my full set of comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    • Image caption in Description section says the specimens pictured are from Michigan, but description on image page says they're from Washington.
    • Lead, "can be used to reliably between them." I think there's a word missing here - "reliably distinguish" perhaps?
    • Later note: As these were the only issues I saw, I went ahead and fixed them both. Please check and make sure I didn't mess anything up in the process :)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    Overall, looks great. As I said above, I fixed the couple of small issues that I found. Otherwise, I see nothing that would hold this back from GA status. Nice work, as usual! Dana boomer (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Well, that was easy! Thanks the review, Dana! Sasata (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply