Talk:Rubroboletus pulcherrimus/GA1

GA Review

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

This article was nominated for good article status. The review began on October 7, 2009. Below is an evaluation of the article, according to the six good article criteria.

I'll be reviewing this article for GA.--Giants 27(c|s) 00:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

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

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Images need WP:ALT text.

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

I'll pass the article since it is very well written and flows amazingly. I however, encourage you to add the alt text.--Giants 27(c|s) 00:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the final result of this review has been in error, you may request a reassessment. If the article failed to attain Good Article status after a full review, it may be easier to address any problems identified above, and simply renominate it.

Thanks kindly for the review! Sasata (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]