# Talk:Podoserpula

Relict populations of a Gondwanan distribution. This aspect must be in the literature, no?--Wetman (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point, but no, I didn't seen it mentioned in the literature during my research. Sasata (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Podoserpula/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 20:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Will review shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
comments
Really an interesting article, but it took me a while to understand it.

what is "the nominate variety"? is that the same as type speciment?
I've added a link. When a species is split up into subspecies or varieties, it's the subspecies/variety that has the same name as the species. Sasata (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
" it is roughly similar to the main type" - what is this again? (sorry to be dense) - is Podoserpula pusio?
I changed it to "var. pusio". Was trying to avoid using the word variety so many times in a short space, but I guess the imprecise wording was confusing :) Sasata (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
"and in 2009 from the Falkland Islands" - is there another way of saying this? - in 2009 on the Falkland Islands?
Yes, changed. Sasata (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
the link checker shows a link to http://www.mycobank.org/MycoTaxo.aspx?Link=T&Rec=18321 (info) [mycobank.org] - but I can't find it in the article - ??
It's used as the source for the synonyms in the taxobox. Sasata (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
South Pacific goes to a disambig page.
Fixed. Sasata (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Great pictures and a fascinating fungi. I made a few edits that you're free to revert:[1]
I'll put in temporarily on hold, but really it's a good article.  Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks kindly for your review! Sasata (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
GA review-see WP:WIAGA for  criteria (and here for what they are not)

Is it reasonably well written?
a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

b. complies with  MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout: 

b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:  

c. no original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
no edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
pass!

Wonderful article! MathewTownsend (talk) 19:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)