Talk:Aureoboletus mirabilis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...first; in Description, maybe a more 'directive' caption for Image:Boletellus mirabilis 28545 crop.jpg. Next, the section title Chemical tests feels like the ~~tense~~ is out of place; how about Chemically tested or Chemical delineation? Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I swapped out the pore surface pic for something more closeup (mentioned closeup in caption), as in retrospect I don't think the old one offered more information than what's already in the taxobox. Also added a location to the taxobox pic. Changed "Chemical tests" to "Chemical reactions"... better? Sasata (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bettah! Now, in Habitat & destr, the paragraph "Although fruit bodies are sometimes found growing on logs with advanced brown cubical rot (suggestive of cellulose-decomposing saprobism), the rotten logs harboring the fungi typically contain abundant conifer roots. It has been suggested that B. mirabilis, which only fruits in the presence of hemlock, has specifically adapted to this niche to reduce competition for nutrients with other fungi"... contextualize ~~(if that's a word)~~ the "...niche". Also; "...adapted to this niche...", or 'selected this niche'? I'm not sure, so go with your preferred syntax on that. Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked that section. How does it read now? Sasata (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Lastly; let's double stack Image:Boletellus mirabilis 28545 crop.jpg above image:Boletus mirabilis 65808.jpg, and I'll have everything on my shopping list :-) Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Sasata (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kewl! Rcej (Robert) - talk 02:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Boletus mirabilis 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):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: Pass