Talk:Coprinopsis variegata/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

ASAP again! I lost track of time. Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, ready! Not a lot to do, but a question re Taxonomy:

• From the segment "Later, mycologists had difficulties in construing Peck's concepts of these three taxa and in confirming the presence of them in their regional investigations of the North American mushroom flora. McIlvaine (1902), Hard (1908), and McDougall (1925) report (as variety or species) only C. ebulbosus. Bisby (1938), Christensen (1946), Smith (1958), and Groves (1962) mention only C. quadrifidus. Kauffman (1918) describes both C. ebulbosus and C. quadrifidus, as does Graham (1944). Graham, however, only includes C. quadrifidus in his key to his descriptions of Coprinus species."

• I know this was eventually resolved; but for my own understanding: Were the various mycologist only using one of the the three taxon names because they thought it best described all three taxa, and they believed Peck had not sufficiently considered all the subtle variants in his collection as a single species? Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think it was more a case where the boundaries between Peck's three species descriptions were vague, and instead of going to the effort of really trying to figure out what (if any) differences there were between these species (which would have been a considerable effort: obtaining and comparing type specimens, collecting new samples, publishing results, etc.) the later mycologists were more interested in assigning names to their own collections so they could publish their books. Or course this is just my own interpretation based on what I've read, I can't put much more in the article than what is there already. Sasata (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Okay. btw, I like the way you tweaked the wording! Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing... I knew you wouldn't be able to resist Charles Peck's commanding glare! Sasata (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article Coprinopsis variegata 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