Talk:Xeromphalina setulipes/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

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]