Talk:Atheniella adonis/GA1
GA Review
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jappalang (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
On hold, pending clarification work.
- Pass/Fail:
"Neither placement is considered correct."- So what is the correct name of the species? Or do you mean neither of Singer's placement is correct? If that is the case, when did it revert to Mycena or were Singer's placements rejected?
"The gills are ascending-adnate or attached by a tooth, subdistant to close, with 14–16 gills reaching the stem in addition to two or three tiers of lamellulae (short gills that do not extend fully from the cap edge to the stem)."- I have difficulty understanding the first part (ascending-adnate). Can this be clarified?
I think other than these; the articles pretty much can be read by a layman for an understanding on this mushroom. Jappalang (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing! I hope these edits resolve your concerns. Sasata (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- The "ascending-adnate" part is well explained (to me at least) but I am not quite sure over Singer's placements. Do you mean the scientific community did not reject his placements, saying that all names derived from his schemes are just the same as if they are placed under Mycena? Binomial nomenclature and Synonym (taxonomy)#Bontany do not really help much. Jappalang (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Mycologists of the past used to have great fun transferring taxa around to different genera depending on how they believed the genera should be described and what characters they believed were important. As a result, many older taxa have long lists of synonyms. In this case, I have clarified that it was Singer himself who changed his mind and moved it back to Mycena. Sasata (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- That works for me. Passing this article as GA. Jappalang (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Mycologists of the past used to have great fun transferring taxa around to different genera depending on how they believed the genera should be described and what characters they believed were important. As a result, many older taxa have long lists of synonyms. In this case, I have clarified that it was Singer himself who changed his mind and moved it back to Mycena. Sasata (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- The "ascending-adnate" part is well explained (to me at least) but I am not quite sure over Singer's placements. Do you mean the scientific community did not reject his placements, saying that all names derived from his schemes are just the same as if they are placed under Mycena? Binomial nomenclature and Synonym (taxonomy)#Bontany do not really help much. Jappalang (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.