Talk:Coprinopsis atramentaria/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The lead is a good, short, and concise summary of the topic. The prose is clearly written without using too much technical language.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Citations are used appropriately and as necessary. I made a minor change to the formatting of the notes/references section to comply more with standards used by other articles, but overall, there are no citation/referencing issues.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers most major aspects of this species.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No WP:NPOV issues.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Most of the editing is by Casliber. No evidence of edit wars.

6. 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):

   The images are tagged and meet the criteria. I think it would be preferable if the structural diagram of coprine was all in black, without the extra colors on the oxygens and nitrogens (therefore, the article could be printed in black & white without some grey used for these atoms). But I won't hold up GA over this.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I see no reason not to promote this article. Nice work! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)