Talk:Mythicomyces/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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)

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)

Well, that was easy! Thanks the review, Dana! Sasata (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)