Talk:Xeromphalina setulipes

Xeromphalina setulipes is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 14, 2014.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 7, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
October 5, 2011	Featured article candidate	Promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 12, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the mushroom Xeromphalina setulipes is known only from Ciudad Real Province, Spain?

Current status: Featured article

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Xeromphalina setulipes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ucucha 18:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fungal GA noms tend to be taken fast, so I'm claiming this one now; I'll provide comments over the next few days. Ucucha 18:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wah! I saw this appear on my watchlist, and figured I'd wait until after lunch to sign up for it ... that'll teach me. Sasata (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Ucucha 21:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking good; I made a few minor changes. You seem to overuse semicolons a little in the description section, though for GA that shouldn't be a problem. Also, why don't you have anything on the phylogenetic analyses the describers carried out? Ucucha 09:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes! I didn't include much on the phylogenetic analyses because I'm not actually a scientist, I just pretend to be one on Wikipedia. I read it about five times and I just couldn't understand what was going on. I noted their conclusion (the most closely related species) but the experiment itself was too much. I'll probably revisit it at some point, maybe when I've written a few other articles with that sort of info. J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a little myself; for phylogenetic analyses, it's generally more useful to read the figures than the text. The results don't seem very conclusive. (And I'm also not a scientist, just a pretender.) Ucucha 21:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I find particularly commendable are the brief appositional phrases parsing for the average reader the specialized mycological vocabulary. Worth imitating.--Wetman (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]