# Talk:Phragmipedium kovachii

Is there any reason why Phragmipedium kovachii has been renamed as Phragmipedium peruvianum ? According to the World Checklist of Monocotyledons (Kew Botanical Gardens) Phragmipedium kovachii  J.T.Atwood, Dalström & Ric.Fernández  is the accepted name, while Phragmipedium peruvianum  Christensen  is a heterotypic synonym. If you can't find a better authority, I will move this article back to Phragmipedium kovachii. See: [1]  JoJan (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you review this (May 2002) [2]
There is something wrong in [3] it said "Amazonas" but it must be "San Martín"
This is from November 2006 [4] The name P. kovachii, already fairly famous, perhaps even infamous, will be replaced by the less famous P. peruvianum..
Achata  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.89.14.222 (talk) 14:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Don´t forget the replies: Taxon 56(2) and Taxon 56(3). --BerndH (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
These objections have been duly documentend in the article. But as long as P. kovachii is the accepted name, there is nothing we can do.  JoJan (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Phragmipedium kovachii/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look and make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The species was published as new to science... - "if you change "published" to "described" you can link to species description.
Remember that it is prose, hence the text should be in grammatical sentences, e.g. like this
link sepal, synonym, (?) Marie Selby Botanical Gardens, type specimen, subgenus, calcareous soil (describing it as "chalky" might be more accessible to readers...?), cretacean (Cretaceous?),
Add who Michael Kovach was (e.g. "botanist", "tourist") and nationality.
but seem to be larger than in other Phragmipedium species - "seem" is wrong word as no-one has seen them... "thought", "estimated", " "predicted" or something.
The Cultivation section needs to sound less like a "how to" manual...as an example, I wrote Telopea_speciosissima#Cultivation
Can we add anything about relationships to taxonomy section?
looks like we need to get a fulltext of "Phragmipedium kovachii: molecular systematics of a New World orchid" somehow....
The caption for File:Phragmipedium kovachii - Flickr 003.jpg needn't repeat the name of the thing, but say, "in bloom in greenhouse (in [location])" or something
The lead needs to be bigger and mention a few important facts (status maybe and a couple of other things)
Fascinating story indeed.
Hello Casliber, thank you for reviewing this article, your observations have been of great help. I've taken care of the changes suggested to the article, the section on cultivation has minor changes as there isn't much info on the subject and I thought it should be kept brief and concise just to give a general view on this plant's requirements. Frank R 1981 (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Frank R 1981: looking better....just lastly can we add anything to classification (e.g. why it changed subgenera). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


### Status query
Cas Liber, Frank R 1981, it's been nearly two months since the most recent edits here; the only significant edits to the article were to the taxonomy section, though nothing was posted here about them. Where does this review stand, and what, if anything, is left to address in the article? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
1. Well written?:

Prose quality: 
Manual of Style compliance: 
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources: 
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research: 
3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:  - I was waiting on inclusion of some subgeneric classification...but that is only one paper. And realistically it's not essential for the understanding of the subject so after thinking about it I will let it slide. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Focused: 
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: 
5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): 
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall: 

Pass or Fail:   Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)