Talk:Myriostoma/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Mostly excellent, but I am lost at a few places per below.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Pending clarifications of language issues.

• What is an "earthstar"?

• Clarified in the lead. Sasata (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• "It was reported from Colorado by Charles Horton Peck; collected in Florida by L.M. Underwood in 1891; notes published by A.P. Morgan in American Naturalist, April 1892."

  The last part does not seem grammatical... "It was notes published ..."?

• Poor grammar has been fixed. Sasata (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• "but in 1942, Long examined ..."

  Who is Long?

• Mycologist William Henry Long, redlinked. Sasata (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• "... based on the presence of the trabeculae in the gleba, and the absence of a true hymenium."

  Getting a bit too technical here, I think.

• I've glossed a definition for trabeculae; gleba and hymenium are linked. I think it's important to include this to give some historical perspective on why the genus was once considered to be in the Astraceae family. Sasata (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• "... monotypic."

  I think monotypic can be elaborated here, by adding the meaning, without expecting the reader to jump to that article.

• Done. Sasata (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• "The fruit bodies are initially hypogeous with a basal mycelial strand, often in leaf debris."

  I am lost here...

• Rewritten. Sasata (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• "As they mature and the rays open, they become superficial, ..."

  Is superficial the word to use here? I am assuming the intent is to say that the entire fungus is above ground. By using "the rays" (definite article), it seems readers are expected to know of these "rays" from the start, which I think is a mistake: I would not know of "rays" unless I had seen a picture of the fungus and associate the "sunray" pattern with the word.

• I used superficial to avoid using "epigeous", but should have done a better job. This part of the description has been copyedited for jargon reduction. Sasata (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• "The fruit bodies are inedible."

  Are the rays and other parts of the fungus edible?

• The rays are part of the fruit body (fruit body is linked to sporocarp earlier in the article). The only other part of the fungus is the mycelia, and that's not something that someone would typically find (or be able to identity to a species, if they did). Sasata (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• "There are several to many columellae, ..."

  What are columellae?

• Definition glossed. Sasata (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• "It is saprobic, and derives nutrients by decomposing organic matter."

  "It is saprobic, deriving nutrients by decomposing organic matter."?

• Agree, changed. Sasata (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• "... it tends to prefer growing on ..."

  Seems to be some redundancy there, suggest "... it tends to grow on ...".

• Trimmed. Sasata (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just the above issues. Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang, thanks for reviewing. I will take a day away from the article for "strategic distance" from the prose, and come back with a copyedit to address your concerns. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 05:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think I got them all, Jappalang. Thanks again for your comments, and helping me reduce my mycojargon (still a perennial weakness of mine). Sasata (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

(Drive-by comment- Ipswitch is a dablink.) J Milburn (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• Dab fixed (I had spelled it wrong). Sasata (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

All fixed; I see no big issues that prevents this from being GA. Jappalang (talk) 00:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

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.