Talk:Lactarius deterrimus/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 18:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

review
  • This is a highly specialized article. In reading through it I've made only on edit.[1]. However, it's written in such a way to be accessible to the nonspecialist. Good job in covering its history, the description of the fungus and it's variants, its use as food etc. It's always interesting when a forgotten scientist comes to the fore and a species name reverted to the original!

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:
    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:
    Pass!

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks! That was very fast O_O =). I also owe special thanks to the various copyeditors, especially Sasata, and others during its appearance on the main page. Regards.--GoPTCN 20:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and I saw Casliber too. I do tend to trust editors whose articles I've seen before and who in my book are experts on the subject! Great pictures, citations all in order, etc. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]