Talk:Geastrum welwitschii/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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

• Is File:Geastrum welwitschii.jpg a black and white image?

• 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)

• Crappy in a good way :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• In taxonomy; sentence "Patricio Ponce de León in his 1968 world monograph of Geastrum, considered the species a fornicate variety of G. javanicum, and described it as Geastrum javanicum var. welwitschii; this is now a synonym."

• 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)

• 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've added a note to explain this term. Sasata (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Is "aff." usually a temporary designation? Would such specimens eventually be placed into their own taxon? Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• 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)

• Your usage of the term 'fornicate'; my wikt may be mistaken context, but you're meaning "raised and arched" every instance? Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes—no fungal hanky-panky is implied. Thanks for reviewing! Sasata (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Wrap :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Results of review

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