Talk:Banksiamyces/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty nice article :) Three things first:

• The caption for taxobox img File:Banksia violacea 14 orig.JPG identifies the specimen as Banksiamyces, but the file description says that hasn't been verified. We won't be able to use it until we're sure... no surprise there ;)

• -cry- Ok, I've removed it until we can get some kind of expert confirmation of the genus. Sasata (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Tears of fungal passion! ;) Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• In the lead; "Banksiamyces is a genus of fungi in the family Helotiaceae; according to the 2007 Outline of Ascomycota, the placement in this family is uncertain." That 2007 factoid is not really addressed in the article.

• I reworked the lead a bit, and have explicated the uncertainty in its familial placement in the taxonomy section. Sasata (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Good. Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• In Taxonomy, para. "In 1957 and 1958, R. W. G. Dennis redescribed the species, and after consultation with Canadian mycologist James Walton Groves, who had earlier completed a monograph on the genus Tympanis, transferred the taxon to the genus Encoelia (Sclerotiniaceae family). Because the original collections were incomplete and certain microscopic features inadequately described, various collections made from Australia were presumed to be variations of the original species Encoelia toomansis." What in Dennis' redescription and (I'm presuming "in contrast to") Groves' monograph resulted in the generic transfer? Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I cannot access the Groves paper, and the two Dennis papers don't give the specific reasons for the transfer (he just says he agrees with Groves). I did, however, add a few words about Encoelia to give some context that would help the reader understand why it may have seemed logical, based on physical appearance, to place this taxon there. Sasata (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice again. Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Next up:

• In Taxo.; sentences "A 2006 study identified two additional taxa that did not quite meet the description for previously published species; these have been called Banksiamyces aff. macrocarpus and Banksiamyces aff. toomansis. Some existing species were found on other banksia species, so evidence strengthened that the individual Banksiamyces fungi did not exclusively parasitize only one banksia species." From the 2nd sentence "Some existing species were found on other banksia species, so evidence strengthened that the individual Banksiamyces fungi did not exclusively parasitize only one banksia species."; had it been suggested that individual Banksiamyces had exclusive association with banksia species? It just needs a context tweak there :)

• Sure, mentioned that this idea had been proposed in the 1982 paper. Sasata (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Good. Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• In Species, the img File:Banksia aus dist map colour gnangarra.png causes confusion just because Banksiamyces is abbreviated in the section, yet the caption reads full out Banksia and its distribution with no mention of the fungus. hmmm... Is there a statistical distributive correlation between Banksiamyces and Banksia? Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Caption is now more informative. There's no easy correlation between Banksia and Banksiamyces, other that one grow exclusively on the other, so I thought the banksia range map would be a way to quickly show the reader where they might find the fungus. Sasata (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Supreme caption :) Article passes! Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for another review, Robert! Sasata (talk) 04:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article Banksiamyces passes this review, and has been upgraded 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