Talk:Mycenastrum
Add topicLatest comment: 12 years ago by Miyagawa in topic GA Review
 | Mycenastrum 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: October 20, 2013. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Mycenastrum appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 October 2013. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Mycenastrum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 17:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Ok, going to review this article now. Miyagawa (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Former Mycenastrum: A couple of the entries in the table are uncited (the first entry and the fifth entry). Also it might be tidier to create an additional column and place all the citations there.
- All rows have a citation now. I'd prefer to keep the citations as is, because it allows one to easier distinguish between protolog citations and database citations. I may end up changing this format before FAC though... Sasata (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Images: All are fine.
- Referencing: All looks good.
- No duplicate images.
- I'm not the best expert, but I can't spot anything standing out prose-wise. So I think this just needs that minor table tidy and it'll be good for GA. Miyagawa (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing another one of my fungus submissions, Miyagawa. Sasata (talk) 19:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- No worries. Happy to promote this to GA now. Miyagawa (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)