Talk:Typhula quisquiliaris/GA1

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

Reviewer:  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  08:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Will start ASAP!  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  08:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Very nice! Just a couple of things:
 * May we rock a mycomorphbox?
 * It's not really a mushroom, but I've added one anyway. J Milburn (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In taxonomy:
 * The sequence of naming events is sort of ping-ponging back and forth; maybe ce in the straightforward chronology, including the epithet's initial coinage, and ending with the naming of T. quisquiliaris. Also, there is a slight contradiction(?) in "T. quisquiliaris was given its sanctioned name several years later by Elias Magnus Fries, in his 1821 Systema Mycologicum." and "Fries name was taken up as valid, and, in 1896, Paul Christoph Hennings transferred the species to Typhula, giving the species the name by which it is known today." :)  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  04:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not sure what the concern is here. Could you please explain again? J Milburn (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm sorry for being vague; its my own misinterpretation of sentence "T. quisquiliaris was given its sanctioned name several years later by Elias Magnus Fries, in his 1821 Systema Mycologicum." The 1821 sanctioned name here refers to the species name, not the genus?  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  05:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. A sanctioned name is the first name for a species published in one of the early major mycological works. So, Sowerby declares it Clavaria obtusa, but this is illegitimate. Fries then published Clavaria quisquiliaris, but then changed it to Pistillaria quisquiliaris in his important work. Even if Sowerby's name hadn't been illegitimate, Fries's name would be the important one. J Milburn (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Very good. All is green...that'll be a pass :)  Rcej (Robert) –  talk  07:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Results of review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Typhula quisquiliaris 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: