# Talk:Pectinopitys ferruginea

Genus should be changed (probably)
"Page (2019) created the genus Pectinopitys to accommodate New Zealand miro, allied species in Eastern Australia (one), New Caledonia (one), and three South American species. "
https://www.nzpcn.org.nz/flora/species/pectinopitys-ferruginea/ 
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0028825X.2019.1625933?journalCode=tnzb20 Quixoticelixer- (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

POWO uses Pectinopitys for the genus. DCDuring (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes. Pretty much all main taxonomic institutions use Pectinopitys. Alexeyevitch(talk) 12:05, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Checks out clean on Earwig.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Could not get access to some but the ones I could check are OK.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pectinopitys ferruginea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 21:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Pbsouthwood (talk · contribs) 15:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Copyvio checks out OK, spot checks on refs OK.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section):  b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Five points tagged for clarification need to be resolved. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: I believe all have been addressed, cheers. :D Alexeyevitch(talk) 23:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
The stones (or pyrena) are 11–17 mm long, and are dark-brown to black-brown in colour. A drupe is a fleshy fruit with thin skin and a central stone containing the seed. The colour of the seed was not previously specified until seeds red colour derives from cyanidin. I was unsure whether you were referring to the stone or the previously unmentioned seed. To avoid having other readers having similar confusion, perhaps mention the red seed along with the stone?
Okay. Alexeyevitch(talk) 05:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
each tip of a single cone's central axis grows longer suggests that a single cone's central axis might have more than one tip, and each one grows longer. If there is only one tip to each cone's central axis, I suggest the less ambiguous alternative "the tip of each cone's central axis grows longer".
It flows much better now. :D Alexeyevitch(talk) 05:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
At certain locations in the South Island, the upper elevational limits of P. ferruginea has risen upwards to more than 60 m (200 ft) in about the last 150 years implies that the absolute altitude limit in South Island is 60m above sea level, and was previously lower at an unspecified altitude. If this is correct, say "At certain locations in the South Island, the upper elevational limits of P. ferruginea has risen upwards to more than 60 m (200 ft) above sea level in about the last 150 years", or specify the previous altitude limit on South Island. (The altitude limit of 1000m given in the text does not specify a range, so it implies all the islands). If the altitude limit has risen by 60m from the previous limit, then use "At certain locations in the South Island, the upper elevational limits of P. ferruginea has risen upwards by more than 60 m (200 ft) in about the last 150 years". Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:37, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
I think this flows well: At certain locations in the South Island, the upper elevational limits of P. ferruginea has risen by more than 60 m (200 ft) past its previous limit, in about the last 150 years, likely due to climate change. Alexeyevitch(talk) 05:58, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Looks fine · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:13, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
All good, giving it a pass. It may take a little while for the 'paperwork' to go through. Congratulations on a nice little GA. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:20, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Much appreciated! Thank you for reviewing! Alexeyevitch(talk) 07:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
You are welcome · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
@Alexeyevitch: The renaming author (who I knew) always called himself Chris Page, I'd suggest that, rather than his full pagename - MPF (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
@Alexeyevitch also scientific name possessives "P. ferruginea's timber ..." are awful, and shouldn't be used; say "the timber is ...", as there's no need for continuous repetition of the page name - MPF (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Oh, and one more - being a conifer, it doesn't have fruit, it has (highly modified!) conifer cones, so 'fruit' should not appear on the page :-) MPF (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
Yeah... "pseudo-fruit" or "epimatium" according to Farjon. :-) Alexeyevitch(talk) 22:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

There are a few linking errors between the references and the sfns in this article @Alexeyevitch, I would reccommend this script User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js. It's a life saver. cheers Dracophyllum 09:03, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I do not see any errors right now (from my end)... but I will download the script! Alexeyevitch(talk) 09:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
I can see them now... will attempt to fix it soon. Alexeyevitch(talk) 09:50, 4 July 2025 (UTC)