Talk:Podoserpula

Podoserpula's Gondwanan distribution

Relict populations of a Gondwanan distribution. This aspect must be in the literature, no?--Wetman (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point, but no, I didn't seen it mentioned in the literature during my research. Sasata (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Podoserpula/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 20:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• Will review shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

comments

Really an interesting article, but it took me a while to understand it.

• what is "the nominate variety"? is that the same as type speciment?

• I've added a link. When a species is split up into subspecies or varieties, it's the subspecies/variety that has the same name as the species. Sasata (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• " it is roughly similar to the main type" - what is this again? (sorry to be dense) - is Podoserpula pusio?

• I changed it to "var. pusio". Was trying to avoid using the word variety so many times in a short space, but I guess the imprecise wording was confusing :) Sasata (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• "and in 2009 from the Falkland Islands" - is there another way of saying this? - in 2009 on the Falkland Islands?

• Yes, changed. Sasata (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• the link checker shows a link to http://www.mycobank.org/MycoTaxo.aspx?Link=T&Rec=18321 (info) [mycobank.org] - but I can't find it in the article - ??

• It's used as the source for the synonyms in the taxobox. Sasata (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• South Pacific goes to a disambig page.

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Great pictures and a fascinating fungi. I made a few edits that you're free to revert:[1]

I'll put in temporarily on hold, but really it's a good article. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks kindly for your review! Sasata (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   pass!

• Wonderful article! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)