Talk:Macrolepiota clelandii
Latest comment: 6 years ago by 188.83.159.73 in topic another link
 | Macrolepiota clelandii has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: October 23, 2015. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Macrolepiota clelandii appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 November 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Macrolepiota clelandii/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- "According to Else Vellinga, Australian collections labeled Macrolepiota konradii,[6] M. gracilenta, M. mastoidea,[7] and M. procera are synonymous with Macrolepiota clelandii." I defer to your knowledge of the technical terminology, but is "synonymous" strictly correct, here? The names aren't synonymous, the collections were simply misidentified? Similarly, I assume it was not "demonstrated that the taxa were the same species" but that certain collections (IE, Australasian) erroneously identified as the various taxa were shown to be the same species.
- I think "species concept" is jargon, as is "sister".
- The microscopic details paragraph is a bit choppy
- Why "West Australia" and not "Western Australia"?
- The location is wrong on your Phillips source.
Images and sources all look great. No stability or neutrality issues. It looks like you've covered all the literature... Key questions are answered. Not much more to say! Please double-check my copyedits. (The lead image is one of JJ's- too small for FPC, but I'll let him know that the article's seen expansion.) Josh Milburn (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! I think I've taken care of your concerns in this edit. Sasata (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Great- no further comments. Promoting now. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! I think I've taken care of your concerns in this edit. Sasata (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
another link edit
this is interesting http://www.fichasmicologicas.com/?micos=1&alf=M&art=129 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.159.73 (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2018 (UTC)