Talk:Agaricus bernardii/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (talk · contribs) 02:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

will do mid-week Rcej (Robert) – talk 02:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay...got caught up in my human rabies paper. Got the creeps! On to this mushroom: Edibility is in the lede, but nowhere in the article ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 11:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rabies, eh? Seen Old Yeller? See if you can put a link to this in your article, guaranteed A+. Wasn't too long ago I learned about that interesting virus in depth for a micro class. I've had that article on my to-do list for some years now. Once I get all the fungi done I'll start working on some viruses... Yeah, the missing edibility was an oversight—now rectified. Sasata (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely seen it...LOL, I must've missed that part!! ;) GTG Rcej (Robert) – talk 11:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Agaricus bernardii passes this review, and has been promoted to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: Pass