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

Nominator:Alexeyevitch (talk ·contribs)04:32, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer:ZKevinTheCat (talk·contribs)05:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starting the GA review.
—ZKevinTheCat

• The lead is very selective with its information. It includes the info about that 2012 study but doesn't include info about its 2019 reclassification, which one could argue is more important. It also doesn't include anything about its uses

Done. Adding its uses is a good idea.Alexeyevitch^(talk)03:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The taxonomy section should have some reorganization done. I did this in a previous edit but you reverted it. I reorganized it because the leading paragraph of the section is basically just more taxonomic history, so I merged them. You could also merge the Distribution & Ecology sections since they are related

Quite honestly, I like the organization in the taxonomy section, as it makes the text looks less chunky and organized.Alexeyevitch^(talk)03:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no source for the Taylor quote

Added.Alexeyevitch^(talk)03:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[16] -X
The figure in this study shows that a clade containingP. ferruginea andP. ferruginoides are the closest relatives of the species, notP. montana.

Check figure 6 in the cited reference (Khan et al).Alexeyevitch^(talk)03:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[19] -X
I think the page number given is incorrect. The source mentionsD. mai on page 213, not 212.

Done.Alexeyevitch^(talk)03:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[25] - good

[35] - good