Talk:Mycena purpureofusca

Mycena purpureofusca has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 17, 2013. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Mycena purpureofusca appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 September 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the purple edge bonnet (pictured) contains an enzyme that can break down dyes used in textile dyeing and printing processes?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mycena purpureofusca.

Wikipedia

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mycena purpureofusca/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 12:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one later tonight. Not my usual area of work, but I'm trying to do my bit to help out the other WikiCup competitors in the final round with reviews. Miyagawa (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you! Looking forward to your review. Sasata (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, on to the review. I've had a read through already and I don't think there will be a great many points to raise.

Duplicate links: There was just the one, so I fixed it myself.

Taxonomy: Although it would end up with four linked words in a row (because of the double barrelled name), I'd link mycologist in the first line (only because I had to go look it up myself!).

Done. Sasata (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Description: More of a comment than anything - you mention that the edibility is unknown, yet the template on the right says inedible and you mention earlier in the first paragraph about the taste not being distinctive. I take it the template doesn't have an unknown option?

Actually it does ... fixed. Sasata (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Might want to link basidia on first mention.

Done (and trimmed some repetition). Sasata (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Last sentence of the first paragraph doesn't have an inline citation.

Added. Sasata (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's pretty much it. The prose is solid and the images all check out per licencing with some nice images included. Miyagawa (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on the review Miyagawa. Sasata (talk) 19:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, I think this now meets the GA criteria (although it wasn't far off before!). Passing. Miyagawa (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indicator species[edit]

If M. purpureofusca is an indicator species of relect Caledonian Forest, a reference to it at that article would be an improvement and would help tie this article better into Wikipedia as a whole.--Wetman (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done – thanks for the note. Sasata (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mycena purpureofusca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140228152350/http://home.online.no/~araronse/Mycenakey/purpureofusca.htm to http://home.online.no/~araronse/Mycenakey/purpureofusca.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]