Talk:Kalapuya brunnea/GA1

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Ucucha (talk · contribs) 21:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take up this one. Ucucha (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hugely important, but I'd prefer for this to be at the binomial name; compare Ambondro mahabo, Afrasia djijidae, and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life/Archive_28#Disambiguator_for_monotypic_genera. You refer there to a discussion at the floral naming conventions page, but that discussion doesn't seem to address the case where the generic name is ambiguous, as is the case here.

I'm not yet convinced that ambiguity resulting from similar or identical naming with a non ToL article requires contravening the normal naming conventions; would like to see this provision put in the guide if consensus agrees. I did, however, add this article to the Kalapuya dab page. Sasata (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're already contravening the conventions, because those call for the article to be called Kalapuya, not "Kalapuya (fungus)". You can't follow the conventions strictly, so why not choose a natural disambiguator (the species name) instead of an artificial one? Ucucha (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I read through the discussions again and accept that naming at the binomial is the best solution in these cases. Could you move the article for me (needs an admin, it tells me)? Sasata (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Ucucha (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not discuss the Kalapuya tribe a little more (e.g., that they live in the area where the mushroom is found, but that they don't seem to have ever eaten them).

Added this. Sasata (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems important to mention that it was at first thought to be a new Leucangium (Trappe et al., 2010). Also, perhaps don't mention the fact that it's been harvested commercially only in a caption (I missed it at first).

Good suggestions, done. Sasata (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The map is rather uninformative without any indication of where the actual range of the fungus is, and it would be better to have a map where its range is somewhat central, as opposed to being near the southern margin of the map.

I removed it; couldn't find a replacement I was happy with. Might try to make one myself (but my drawing program skillz are weak). Sasata (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The similar peridial structure of the hypogeous Morchellaceae also seems important to mention.

Done. Sasata (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, it looks good, and great work in getting those images. Ucucha (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick review Ucucha! Sasata (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes. We still disagree on the best name it seems, but that's a minor issue and I'm happy to pass the article now. Ucucha (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.