Talk:Volvariella surrecta/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 23:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll reveiw this - looks very interesting! MathewTownsend (talk) 23:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

review

This is a very nice article. I've made a few copy edits[1], hopefully ok with you.

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:y

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pass!

Congratulations! MathewTownsend (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and copyedits Mathew! Sasata (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I also made a few copy edit changes that I hope are all right. If I have done something wrong, please let me know since I am new to editing on Wikipedia. Thank you! BriannaMaxim (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)