Talk:Lepiota castaneidisca/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 02:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll take this article for review, and should have my initial comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   • Lead, when was the analysis that determined it was genetically distinct?

   • Added. Sasata (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

   • Lead, "Its fruit bodies (mushrooms" Should "mushrooms" be enclosed in parentheses, or is the closing parentheses supposed to be elsewhere?

   • Missing closing parenthesis added. Sasata (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

   • Systematics, "Using molecular analysis," The article could be fleshed out a bit at this point. When was this analysis done? Who is Vellinga? Has this separation been generally accepted by the mycology field, or is it still in the testing stage? Has anyone else had anything to say about this species since the analysis was conducted?

   • I added "mycologist" before Else Vellinga. Based on her publications, she's an authority on "lepotiaceous" fungi (especially from California), but I don't think she meets the strict notability standards for WP:PROF (else I'd write a stub). Added a bit about the molecular analysis. This type of genetic analysis is pretty authoritative for species determination in fungi. AFAICT, the only sources that discuss this particular species are used in the article. Sasata (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

   • Description, "The mushroom not known to be poisonous," First, should this be "is not known"? Second, is there a source for this sentence?

   • Added missing word; added source. Sasata (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

   • I'm a little confused as to whether there are physical differences between this species and L. cristata. In the Systematics section, you say there is a "lack of distinguishing morphological characteristics," but then in the Similar species section, you give three differences in the appearance of the two species.

   • My bad. There is little/no difference in microscopic characteristics; I've now made this explicit. Sasata (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

   • Similar species, "L. cristata prefers disturbed habitats like cities or along rivers," First, would "riverbanks" work in place of "along rivers"? If so, I think it flows better. Second, I'm not sure why riverbanks in general are considered disturbed habitat? Unless they are in a highly trafficked area, I tend to think of riverbanks as relatively pristine... And what would make a riverbank not a "natural habitat" as described in the next sentence?

   • I've rewritten this and hopefully clarified the differences in habitat between the two species. Sasata (talk)

   • Similar species, "L. neophana is a rare species, but more widely distributed than L. castaneidisca, as it has been reported from Ohio and Michigan." Has it been reported from California/Mexico to Ohio/Michigan? Or just in Ohio/Michigan?

   • Clarified. Sasata (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • See a few of the comments above in the prose section. A few areas feel a little sparse on details.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   • The template that creates descriptions for File:Lepiota castaneidisca AlanRockefeller.JPG, File:Lepiota castaneidisca younger.JPG, File:Lepiota castaneidisca spores.JPG is broken, making there be no description.

   • I've fixed all of these now. Sasata (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall a nice little article. However, there are a few spots that feel a little rushed, with detail missing, and others that are confusing to a non-mycologist. Also a couple of tweaks needed to the images. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Dana, it was quite helpful! Sasata (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, everything looks good, so I am now promoting to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)