Talk:Amanita exitialis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 16:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am beginning the review here.

"It is distributed in eastern Asia, and probably India, misidentified as A. verna." - not clear what this means. It is misidentified both places or only in India?

Clarified that it's been misidentified in India. Sasata (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The fruit bodies are white, small to medium-sized with caps up to 7 cm (2.8 in) in diameter" - I am just not clear what a fruit body is.

"fruit bodies" shouldn't this wikilink to Sporocarp (fungi). The link currently given is not helpful to me. This link describes the bruit body as the "cap" (my words), I think.

The confusion probably stems from my desire to use the correct terminology (and not explaining them clearly). The article is about a fungus, and the fungus makes fruit bodies (technically basidiocarps—sporocarp is a more general term); these fruit bodies are commonly known as "mushrooms". Hopefully it's better in the article now. Sasata (talk)

Most are four-spored - have mentioned this in the lead now. Sasata (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If there was a wiki-compatible image available, it would be in there :) Sasata (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

" flesh not reddening" - this is unusual? (this list is a little unclear; I am not sure what it is comparing it to.)

Not necessarily unusual, but it's one of the characteristics that define the sub-group to which this species belongs (mentioned that it's reddening upon bruising). Sasata (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"lamellulae (short gills that do not reach the edge of the cap) abruptly truncate;" - should it be "truncated"?

Truncate is the technical term; I changed it to "cut off". Sasata (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my lack of knowledge and understanding. A picture or diagram sure would help.

Considering its distribution, we'll be lucky to get a picture to use, but in the meantime I added a photo of the European species with which it has been commonly misidentified. Thanks for the review, and let me know if there are any further issues... I try to make the articles I write as accessible as possible to the non-expert, so it's really helpful to get feedback like this. Sasata (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xtzou (Talk) 16:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the picture; it's beautiful.
I am not entirely clear, even after reading the article: does this fungus resemble another nonpoisonous one in China, that so man people eat it? (Wouldn't they know it was poisonous?}

That is a good question, but unfortunately I cannot answer it with the sources I have. My guess is that an especially large number of them fruited in 2000, and several poorly-educated Chinese (and poor) people saw an opportunity for some free food. There may be more information as to the motivations of these people in Chinese news reports, but they are not accessible to me. Sasata (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xtzou (Talk) 17:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: Concisely written

B. MoS compliance: Complies with the basic MoS
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: Sources are reliable

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: Sets the context

B. Focused: Remains focused on topic
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Pass!

Nice article. (The picture is marvelous.) Xtzou (Talk) 18:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]