Talk:Podoserpula

Podoserpula 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 18, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 13, 2012.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Podoserpula (pictured) has a unique form of fruit body not known in any other fungi?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

" 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

South Pacific goes to a disambig page.

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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:
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:
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):
Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
no edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
pass!

Wonderful article! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]