Talk:Geastrum quadrifidum/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

He's a lot to read :) We'll start ASAP! Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice job! Here's the gnat:

• In tax and naming; segment "Although the species had been previously described as Lycoperdon coronatum by Jacob Christian Schaeffer (1763) and Giovanni Antonio Scopoli (1772), then afterward as Geaster coronatus by Joseph Schröter (1889), these names were later invalidated in 1981 by changes in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature that made Persoon's 1801 publication the official starting date for fungal taxonomy. Geastrum coronatum, described and named by Persoon in 1801, is a valid, distinct species. In Japan, G. quadrifidum has occasionally been collected under the name "Geastrum minus" (Pers.) G. Cunn. (for example, as in Imai, 1936); within taxonomical terminology, this usage is an auctorum non—a misapplication or misinterpretation of the species name."

• I see what you're referring to, but the sentence "Geastrum coronatum, described and named by Persoon in 1801, is a valid, distinct species." feels out of the blue :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, missed this until now (I really gotta trim my watchlist-currently at over 8500 articles). I have amended the sentence to read: "Geastrum coronatum, originally described and named by Persoon in 1801, is a valid and distinct species that is independent of G. quadrifidum." Does this help make it more contextually appropriate? Sasata (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

• No prob... heh, I can hardly keep track of my 1100! On Gaestrum coranatum, I explained what I meant poorly; where was it suggested that G. coronatum had been previously thought to be associated with G. quadrifidum? I'm getting that inferred from the 'epiphanic' context of the sentence "Geastrum coronatum, originally described and named by Persoon in 1801, is a valid and distinct species that is independent of G. quadrifidum." :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• It wasn't suggested anywhere actually, I just wanted to make sure the reader didn't think that Geastrum coronatum was the same thing as Geaster coronatus (a synonym of Geastrum quadrifidum; Geaster is a orthographic variant of Geastrum) so if these names were written without the authorities indicated, a passerby might think they were the same species. All that said, I could probably leave the whole thing out and the average passerby wouldn't notice the difference :) Sasata (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• 'Twas what I thought you meant, but wasn't 100% sure. How about making that sentence a footnote? Certainly worthy :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, that's a good solution—done! Sasata (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

• I took liberties with Miss Footnote... she was happy afterward, hopefully ;) Pass! Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article Geastrum quadrifidum 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