Talk:Psilocybe pelliculosa/GA1

Latest comment: 12 years ago by Rcej in topic GA Review

GA Review edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Rcej (talk · contribs) 03:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nice work! Here we are:

  • Nah, not really. I may try to draw up a custom range map for this species sometime. Sasata (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Epithet pelliculosa.
  • Will have to get back to you on this, need to find a source. Sasata (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Found one; it's not ideal, but will do until I can get my hands on Stearn's Botanical Latin or something similar. Sasata (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Your credit is good ;) Rcej (Robert)talk 05:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • In Psychoactivity, snippet Stamets considers the species "relatively weak". As a...? Rcej (Robert)talk 04:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Clarified. Thanks for reviewing! Sasata (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Great! Good to go! Rcej (Robert)talk 05:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Results of review edit

GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Psilocybe pelliculosa 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):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. 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):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: Pass