Talk:Morchella tridentina/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks strong at first glance; happy to offer some thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Morchella frustrata is one of 14 new North American species described by Michael Kuo and colleagues as new to science in 2012. The type locality was in Placer County, California." This isn't quite clear; perhaps you could say "one of 14 new North American species described in a [report commissioned by/study conducted for/whatever] by…"

I've rearranged this, how is it now? Sasata (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It was previously referred to as phylogenetic species Mel-2 in a study the year previous" Repetition of previous, but, also, it's not clear what is meant by phylogenetic species. Surely, most species described today could be called "phylogenetic species"? (This is also mentioned later.)

Unfortunately, the species article needs a lot of work and there's not a section in that article to easily link to, so I added a gloss. Sasata (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little thing, but the article sinus (botany) says nothing about mycology, so isn't as useful as it could be!

I agree! I'll add a bit soonish. Sasata (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"somewhat club-shaped at the base" Presumably, thicker at the base? Or do you mean thinner at the base?

Reworded (thicker at the base). Sasata (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are the hairs the paraphyses? I'm assuming not, but I'm wondering what precisely they are!

I'm not quite sure, and the source doesn't say (I think they are just overgrown hyphae). Sasata (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Due to similar light coloration" a similar? its similar?

Tweaked. Sasata (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"oak (Quercus) species," How about "oaks (Quercus spp.)"? Whichever you prefer.

The latter, changed. Sasata (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fungi of Europe? Alternatively, I wonder if there's any room for fungal subcategories of Category:Introduced species.

Added cat. There may be a place for the category you mention, but at any rate I'd not include this species until there's a source that says explicitly that this was introduced. Sasata (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You categorise the species as edible, but this isn't mentioned in the article body.

Not sure how to handle this. Its well-known that the North American Morchella are edible (and choice), but there aren't any sources that so so explicitly for this species. I could source morel edibility in general to Kuo 2005, but it seems to be synthesis to extend that to this species. Suggestions? Sasata (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could say something like "Although edibility was not mentioned in the original description,[cite] Kuo has elsewhere written that all North American Morchella are edible." As it was him who said this (and, presumably, no one has called the species "edibility unknown"), I don't think this is crosses the line into OR. If you feel that this is too much, I understand, but I don't think we can have the category without a mention in the prose. It's also worth noting that this species had been identified (in "Pilz et al., 2004", according to Kuo), so we could even say that it's included in that statement. (I also like the "it's a black morel with the colours of a yellow morel" statement on that page; a statement to that effect could open the similar species section.) J Milburn (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added this bit, and the Kuo quote. Sasata (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it mycorrhizal?

Added. Sasata (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it'd be worth listing other members of the elata clade?

There's quite a few now (and eventually I'll put in a cladogram at the Morchella article), so I just mentioned a couple of the not recently described ones (so presumably more well known). Sasata (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! Short, but as it's only newly described, that's fine. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I'll be sending some more of the new N.A. morels to GA soon, and the comments on this one will help me tweak the other articles. Sasata (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff, I'm promoting now. J Milburn (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.