Talk:Mythicomyces

Mythicomyces 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.
Review: May 4, 2013. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Mythicomyces appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 May 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that although the fungus Mythicomyces corneipes (pictured) was given its current name in 1986, the name was republished 25 years later when the initial publication was found to be in error?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mythicomyces.

Wikipedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mythicomyces/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 20:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll take this article for review. At first glance it looks great (as always!), but I should have my full set of comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 20:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Image caption in Description section says the specimens pictured are from Michigan, but description on image page says they're from Washington.

Lead, "can be used to reliably between them." I think there's a word missing here - "reliably distinguish" perhaps?

Later note: As these were the only issues I saw, I went ahead and fixed them both. Please check and make sure I didn't mess anything up in the process :)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Overall, looks great. As I said above, I fixed the couple of small issues that I found. Otherwise, I see nothing that would hold this back from GA status. Nice work, as usual! Dana boomer (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was easy! Thanks the review, Dana! Sasata (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]