Talk:Volvariella surrecta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Volvariella surrecta 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.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 10, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know
WikiProject Fungi (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 23:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Hi, I'll reveiw this - looks very interesting! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a very nice article. I've made a few copy edits[1], hopefully ok with you.

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
    b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
    b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:y
    c. no original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    no edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and copyedits Mathew! Sasata (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I also made a few copy edit changes that I hope are all right. If I have done something wrong, please let me know since I am new to editing on Wikipedia. Thank you! BriannaMaxim (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)