Talk:Spathularia flavida/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (talk · contribs) 05:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No need for mycomorphbox nor edibility category? :) Rcej (Robert) – talk 06:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Added a mmbox, mentioned edibility in the lead, and added a few details from Arora 1986 that I just found buried under a stack of other books. I don't think an edibility cat is warranted, as the species isn't really known for that. Also, I reverted your addition of a non-break space to the binomial in the taxobox: this is only needed if there's a chance that the absence of the nbsp may result in a line break, but this won't happen in the taxobox. Also, I fixed the citation bot edit; turns out I had the wrong pmid (from a similarly titled but different article). As always, thanks for the review and copyedit Rcej. Sasata (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Very nice! ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 08:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article Spathularia flavida 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:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass