Talk:Hygrocybe appalachianensis

Hygrocybe appalachianensis 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: February 14, 2016. (Reviewed version).

GA Review

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

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]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hygrocybe appalachianensis. 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/20160215180414/http://limyco.org/key_to_waxcap.pdf to http://limyco.org/key_to_waxcap.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]