# Talk:Mythicomyces

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)
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)

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