Talk:Archaeomarasmius/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ucucha 20:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fossils and fungi: a nice combination.

~~One minor niggle to start with: I don't especially like the quote marks around the specimen abbreviations, and I've never seen it in the literature.~~

I removed the quotes, as they ar not placed that way in the type paper.--Kev min § 22:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 20:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~[[Agaricales|gilled]] [[fungus]] in the [[Agaricales]]: one Agaricales seems enough; choose which one you want~~

changed to [[fungus|gilled fungus]] in the [[Agaricales]] family. --Kev min § 22:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why is the year of description given in the taxobox? I thought the ICBN was allergic to that.~~

Yes, removed. Sasata (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~two holotype fossils? Does the ICBN allow that?~~

I don't know what the ICBN allows, but the paper says the two collections are the holotype. Sasata (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, interesting. Article 8.2 of the Vienna Code apparently does allow this. Ucucha 23:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't think piping "type description" to type (biology) makes a lot of sense; that article is about type specimens.~~

Piped to Species description now. --Kev min § 22:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Where is Quatsinoporites from?~~

Vancouver, added. Sasata (talk) 23:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~"gills are distant to subdistant"—would prefer non-mycologese here~~

These terms for gill spacing are unfortunately not standardized, so I changed it to a more vague "distantly spaced", and gave the # of gills. Sasata (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DNA amplification from a 90-million-year-old fossil? They must have been optimists...

I guess they figured since they busted a piece of it, they might as well. Sasata (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Dab Peabody Museum; you may well have meant the real one, at Harvard, but Yale has tried to usurp the name.~~

Dabbed. Sasata (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Thus it is possible that Archaeomarasmius should be placed as incertae sedis in the order Agaricales."—the unexplained "incertae sedis" makes the sentence opaque, and I'm not sure you need it at all, since the preceding sentences already make the point that its relationships are uncertain.

Reworded to "...the authors suggests a more conservative classification of incertae sedis (uncertain placement) in the Tricholomataceae, Agaricales, or Homobasidiomycetes may be more appropriate." Sasata (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that is much clearer. I have tried a different wording; see what you (both) think. Ucucha 00:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok with me. Sasata (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 21:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information about geologic provenance (age, New Jersey amber) is only in the lead, not in the body; per WP:LEAD, this information should also be somewhere in the body. Ucucha 22:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

age added the history and classification section. --Kev min § 23:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rapid responses; I am passing the article as a GA now. Ucucha 00:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for reviewing Ucucha. There will be more fossil fungus GANs coming in the near future, thanks to Kevmin's efforts. Sasata (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]