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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC) Nice! I couldn't find a ce spot at all! Here we go:[reply]

• Optional, but I'm just going to be a creep about File:Coprinellus impatiens 7449.jpg, and in my whiny southern dialect ask "Do ya' got any images without the little nametag in it?" ;)

• Fair enough, the Yosemite survey tag has now been cropped out of existence. Sasata (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Goodie! Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In Tax and phylo:

• From what is the name impatiens derived?

• I've added an etymology, but haven't found anywhere that says why this species was given that epithet. Sasata (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Check. Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we fill in a few gaps in the generic shuffle? Specifically, the "why?" between Agaricus->Coprinarius, Coprinus->Psathyrella and Psathyrella->the initial Coprinellus.

• These are difficult gaps to fill. There is explanation in the 2001 paper by Redhead et al., but honestly, it's very convoluted reading and assumes detailed knowledge of the specific laws and Articles of botanical nomenclature (trans: I'm lazy and don't want to figure it out). I think what's currently there should suffice for a GA-level coverage of the taxonomy of this species. Sasata (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Vaya con Sasata! :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please render this sentence more lay person: "A later (2008) study suggested, however, that these results were due to an artifact of taxon sampling, as their own analysis demonstrated the monophyly of Coprinellus, including C. impatiens." :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Simplified. Sasata (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Much better :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up both my nominations so quickly! I will address these comments and any you have on the other article in a day or two. Sasata (talk) 06:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Coprinellus impatiens passes this review, and has been upgraded 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