Jump to content

Talk:Geastrum welwitschii/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E.T. phone home! Here's the stuff, albeit marginal:

  • Yes. It's a scan from a black and white plate. Crappy image I know, but I figured it's better than nothing! I have added some more details to the image description at Commons. Sasata (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whenever a mycologist describes an established species as a var. of another, is the revert to synonym status pretty casual?
  • Casual indeed, they used to do stuff like that all the time. Can't get away with it so much anymore, as now taxonomical changes have to be supported with molecular phylogenetics. Sasata (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is interesting. In similar species; paragraph "According to mycologists Hemmes and Desjardin, the most common earthstar in the coastal Casuarina forests of Hawaii is a species "closely allied" with G. welwitschii, which they name Geastrum aff. welwitschi. It differs from the main species in its much coarser pyramidal warts on the exoperidial surface, a sessile and sac-shaped endoperidial body, and smaller spores. They likened the roughened outer surface of the exoperidium to lychee fruit."
  • Is it uncommon for a "closely allied" fungal specimen to be considered neither a variety nor a distinct species? I figure that's pretty much the purpose of the 'aff.' designation... I've not seen that before.
  • I honestly don't know. My guess is that they just haven't done the work yet (i.e. extracted DNA and compared with DNA from similar species, wrote & published the results), and only DNA analysis will prove conclusively whether this is a distinct taxon. Sasata (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results of review

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Geastrum welwitschii 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