Talk:Coprinellus micaceus/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

First issue
Regular drill. Subsection edibilty in description.1, and I'll do a ce once over. It's kind of easy to review when you know each other's way of doing things. heh.-- Rcej (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Great to see you back! I cleaned up the place a bit when I knew you were coming. Sasata (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Spiffy! Next, the images. I see the second and third are both from the same area in Belgium, so that's good you saved that info. for the third one, near the habitat/distrib section. Maybe, also in the third, a small mention re. something noticeable about those specimens or the ground they're emerging from. Also, does the article cover everything you think should be written about this mushroom? It's ga now, but feel free to put any/all/whatever.-- Rcej (talk) 03:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I swapped the pic for something nicer, and buffed up the caption. Also sprinkled in a few more details & 3 more good online citations. I'm sure I'll scour the literature again before any future FAC push, but I think I'm good for now. Sasata (talk) 07:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome! It's a passin'. Good working with you again... and you'll be seeing me again, too.-- Rcej (talk) 08:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks kindly for the review, it is much appreciated! Sasata (talk) 13:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Results of review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Coprinellus micaceus passes this review, and has been upgraded to good article status. The review process went smoothy and decisively, and 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: