Talk:Mycena cinerella/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 00:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Short and sweet! Two Taxonomy things:

• Agaricus->Mycena again... I'ma nagger ;)

• In this case, I'm not sure about Karsten's motivations for the transfer; I did however, find the original description online and reffed it, so the interested Latin-speaking scholar can try to figure it out himself! Sasata (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Clarify, possibly elaborate upon sentence "Jakob Emanuel Lange placed it (1936) in the genus Omphalia, creating the synonym Omphalia cinerea." so we know the placement wasn't the synonymous delineator or creator. Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Again, I don't know why Lange placed it in Omphalia, but I did tweak the wording. Is it better now? Sasata (talk) 00:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• That's fine :) Pass! Rcej (Robert) - talk 01:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Robert! I hope you aren't getting sick of Mycenas... there's a few more cooking on the back burner ;) I'll mix it up soon. Sasata (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article Mycena cinerella passes this review, and has been promoted to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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: Pass