Jump to content

Talk:Guepinia/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 06:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job! A couple of issues:

  • I see that Fries' sanctioning was considered weighty; was his sanctioning of Tremella helvelloides (from, I assume a standard evaluation of T. rufus) sufficient to render the name T. rufus and all based associates taxonomically unavailable across the board, or for this particular species? Was Fries' sanctioning also a consideration in the move to Guepina within the purpose of honoring Jean-Pierre Guepin?
  • There's a lot that could be written about this taxon's complicated taxonomic history, but I wanted to keep it relatively short. I explained a bit more about the naming confusion, and how the 1982 change more or less rendered all the previous arguments historical. Sasata (talk)
  • Much better! Now, this sentence, "This has made Tremella rufa and all names based on it unavailable for use.", drives my only lingering question: Why? :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Fries had previously sanctioned T./G. helvelloides, what were the purposes of Quelet and Brefeld's later suggested, respective placements?
  • Is incertae sedis a commonplace assessment?
  • Only if they don't know how to classify it! Seriously, I've seen dozens of examples of taxa that don't quite fit into the sometimes narrowly defined taxonomic concepts, and so are incertae sedis in their placement (waiting for someone to give them a home with modern phylogenetic analysis). Sasata (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! Pass! Rcej (Robert) - talk 02:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results of review

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Guepinia 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