Talk:Phallus impudicus/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I may have screwed up in that I linked gleba and first mention and added italics, since you had it in italics below. However, in the next paragraph I noticed that it is not italized. So you should go through and make it consistent, however you want it. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I took out the italics – I sometimes italicize obscure mycological terms at the first use in an article (but not with any real consistency), but it's probably not necessary in this case as the word is wikilinked. Many thanks for the review, I was crossing my fingers, hoping I wouldn't have to take the article off GAN before my vacation! Sasata (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Another nice article by you! Happy vacation! —Mattisse (Talk) 20:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Covers major areas b (focused): Remains focused on topic

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

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:

Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 20:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)