Talk:Strobilomyces foveatus/GA1

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the info is limited on him :) Just a couple nitpicks:
 * Eponym up foveatus, if.
 * Done. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Mention in the lead/article that edibility is unknown.
 * Ok. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No similar species, I'm guessing. (heh... I just threw that in to be a creep). ;) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * To me, all Strobilomyces look pretty much the same (I've never found one in real life) :)

What makes Mushroom Observer a reliable source in this case? Is Roy Halling a noted mycologist? Also, Mushroom Observer needn't be italicised. J Milburn (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally, I wouldn't use MO as a source for distribution, but in this case I thought it was warranted. Roy Halling is considered an authority on the Boletales (and he deserves his own wiki page imho); you can see his extensive publication list on his CV that's linked at his New York Botanical Gardens page here. He was the one that found and identified the specimen pictured in the article, and who updated the distribution info at the MO species description page. Mushroom Observer is italicised because I put it in the "work" parameter of the cite web template. Am I using the wrong parameter? Sasata (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough then- provided he is a recognised mycologist (and not just some clueless guy who thinks mushrooms are cool, like me) that would be fine as a self-published work. The "work" parameter causes problems like this a lot- why it still automatically italicises, I don't know- I can only assume the fact that most people now work around it means that only the (few) cases where italics are needed actually use it. The "publisher" parameter would not italicise it. The list of things that should normally be italicised can be found here- the closest thing would be "Periodicals (newspapers, journals, and magazines)", but Mushroom Observer certainly isn't one of them. Equally, we would not italicise Facebook, YouTube or Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 23:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Another thought- if he's notable, and especially if you intend to write an article at some point, perhaps redlink his name in the reference? J Milburn (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll redlink him here and in other articles. Regarding the work parameter, the template documentation says this:


 * work: If this item is part of a larger "work", such as a book, periodical or website, write the name of that work. Do not italicize; the software will do so automatically.
 * publisher: Publisher, if any—for example if the website is hosted by a government service, educational institution, or company. (The publisher is not usually the name of the website, that is usually the work).


 * I figured that the specific species page was part of the larger MO website, so thought the usage was appropriate as explained in the instructions. Does not the MOS:Italics page you pointed to refer to article text (instead of citation/references text)? If not there seems to be conflicting instructions between the two pages. Sasata (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Very good! And thx for your input JMilburn... much appreciated :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Results of review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Strobilomyces foveatus 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):
 * 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: