Talk:Podoserpula/GA1

GA Review
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)

Really an interesting article, but it took me a while to understand it.
 * Will review shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * comments
 * 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:

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:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
 * fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * no edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * pass!
 * Wonderful article! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * no edit wars, etc:
 * 1) 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * pass!
 * Wonderful article! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * pass!
 * Wonderful article! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wonderful article! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)