Talk:Hygrocybe appalachianensis/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 11:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"the basionym was erroneously given as "appalachiensis" instead of the original spelling appalachianensis" Maybe I'm being picky, but is the use of the word "erroneously" OR here? Also (and I defer to you here) why do you name only Kronawitter and not the coauthor?

Picky is good! I've left out the value judgement "erroneously" (yes, it was a bit OR) and instead made it more explicit that this is a variant spelling. Coauthor now mentioned. Sasata (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"the description of basidia was only for microbasidia while the immature macrobasidia" Jargon? Also "microspores".

Now explained. Sasata (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In a recent (2014) reorganization" I personally don't mind this at all, but it should be avoided, per WP:DATED.

Reworded. Sasata (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Its bright red color fades in age" You're yet to mention it has a bright red colour. How about something like "It is a bright red color, but this fades in age"?

Reworded. Sasata (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The ratio of macrobasidia length to macrospore length is usually less than five" I don't follow. Less than five to one?

Yes, changed. Sasata (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth adding a category for the edibility?

I'm reluctant to categorically assign edibility to this species, since the wording of the main source is a little dubious about this. Sasata (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's worth noting that the Bessette key was published by the Long Island Mycological Club. I know that the author is more important than the publisher in this case, but a fuller citation would still be good.

Done. Sasata (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I recommend that you shift the cladogram to the right? It would scrunch text between it and the taxobox, but it wouldn't push down into the sections below. Just a suggestion.

It was already on the right, but I moved it up a paragraph. Does this solve the issue on your screen? Sasata (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant "left"! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that works too. Sasata (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have a location for The Alkaloids?

Added. Sasata (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images and sources look great. A very neat article. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sasata (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with these responses, and a look through the article reveals no other concerns. I'm happy to promote at this time. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]