Talk:Entoloma austroprunicolor/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing this one at FPC. Nice looking article.

"(haven a central rounded elevation resembling a nipple)" I assume you mean "having"?

Yes, fixed. Sasata (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the link to adnation is useful, especially as it doesn't say anything about fungi

I'm going to leave this link in, and add a bit to the adnation article later (probably a good idea as I've been linking to this in other articles). Sasata (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"stipe measures 3–7.5 cm (1.2–3.0 in) tall and" Long?

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"cortex" Jargon

Trimmed. Sasata (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"contain granules that contain" Repetition

Prose tweaked. Sasata (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"and has different microscopic features.[3]" Seeing as it's a short section, perhaps you could expand on these features?

Not much to expand on from the source, but I added what it has. Sasata (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, and there may not be much you can expand upon here, but if it's common, why was it only described so recently?

Australian fungi are notoriously underdescribed. I added a bit of background in the taxonomy section which may help explain the answer to your question. Sasata (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few small edits. A literature search threw up nothing you'd missed- clearly not a species that's been written about much, but there's certainly enough here for GA status. J Milburn (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Sasata (talk) 20:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with the fixes, and thanks for the clarification about why this was such a recent discovery. I'm going to go ahead and promote now- not the biggest or most exciting article, but seems to accurately reflect what has been published about this species. J Milburn (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]