 | Amanita regalis 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 13, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the royal fly agaric (pictured) was the German Mycological Society's "Mushroom of the Year" in 2000? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
v. A. muscaria
editRegarding the levels of ibotenic acid and muscimol has the data been put in relation with the content of A. muscaria? i.e. is it more than in A. muscaria or on the same level? After all "considerable" must logically be stated by comparison with SOMETHING. Circéus (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Alas, I haven't been able to find any specific numbers yet. I removed the word "considerable" to more accurately reflect the sources I have. Thanks for the note. Sasata (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
GA Review
edit- This review is transcluded from Talk:Amanita regalis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 09:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
As we said on Louisiana playgrounds as kids "I got dibs!" (trans: We'll start ASAP)-- Rcej (Robert) - talk 09:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay... as it turns out, the article had nothing but a few little blips; I took care of them, so I'm just going to pass it. That one doi is pmid-covered, but you can hunt that doi anytime. Non-issue there. btw, I love that you used 'ochraceous'... lol.-- Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Robert. Ochraceous is one of the many mushroom-related descriptive terms that has infiltrated my regular conversation; it's becoming so pervasive that my 5-year old son is picking up some of these words too! Sasata (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Results of review
editThe article Amanita regalis passes this review, and has been upgraded to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS):
- a (prose):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail: Pass
- Pass/Fail: Pass
Hokkaido Japan
editI just came upon a beautiful specimen in Hokkaido Japan outside of Sapporo. I know we can’t add that since it is OR, but perhaps some can find an RS. Nowa (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)