Talk:Volvopluteus michiganensis

Volvopluteus michiganensis has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: July 14, 2014. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Volvopluteus michiganensis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Volvopluteus michiganensis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Seppi333 (talk · contribs) 08:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

Good Article Status - Review Criteria

Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.^[1]

Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);^[2] and

(c) it contains no original research.

Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;^[3] and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

^[4]

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

^[5]

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.^[6]

Additional Notes

^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
^ Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.
^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Discussion

Figured I'd take another of yours since I have time for it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 08:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the long wait; the article looks good. I made to minor textual tweaks today, but otherwise it easily passes all GA criteria. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Well-written:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (prose)	Made two minor textual changes. Overall, the prose is good.	Pass
(b) (MoS)	Conforms to MOS per AWB and manual checks for compliance.	Pass

Verifiable with no original research:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (references)		Pass
(b) (citations to reliable sources)		Pass
(c) (original research)	WP:V-checked with the two most heavily cited papers.	Pass

Broad in its coverage:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (major aspects)	Contains all relevant sections for fungi articles with sufficient content in each.	Pass
(b) (focused)		Pass

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Notes	Result
	Pass

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Notes	Result
Obviously	Pass

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

Criteria	Notes	Result
(a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales)	PD and CC-BY-SA-3.0	Pass
(b) (appropriate use with suitable captions)	All images have captions.	Pass

Result

Result	Notes
Pass	+1 mushroom GA authored by Sasata .

Thanks Seppi! Sasata (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.

[2] Either parenthetical references or footnotes can be used for in-line citations, but not both in the same article.

[3] This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.

[4] Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.

[5] Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.

[6] The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]