Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Mythicomyces

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Sasata in topic GA Review

GA Review

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

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