Talk:Mycena atkinsoniana/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 09:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mine! Great to see you churning them out again. Review to follow. J Milburn (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whetehr both are acceptable on your side of the Atlantic, but "fall" (in reference to the season) is an unknown term over here. Perhaps "autumn" may be more accessible?

We seem to repeat this exchange every few months :) Changed to autumn. Sasata (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The cap has a whitish bloom at first, but this later sloughs off to leave a smooth surface." It's not quite clear what you mean by a "bloom" here.

My attempt to de-jargonize "pruinose" failed ... now reworded. Sasata (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the image, the gills split and fork; is this worth mentioning in the prose? If no source mentions it, I'd guess not, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

Oddly enough, I can't find this mentioned in any of my sources. Sasata (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you realise, but you can access all of Smith's book online, if you want to add convenience links. You don't have to, I appreciate that it can be a little messy. On that note, the microscopic characteristics section sometimes veers a little close to the original text- not a massive problem, but perhaps something to be aware of with the controversy that flares at FAC from time to time.

No problem, I'm glad you point it out. I've distanced the text further from the source. Sasata (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided a publisher and location for the Geesteranus ref, but not for other journal articles.

Removed. Sasata (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Les champignons du Québec reliable, and why have you italicised the title?

Working on a print source for this. I can find a Google Books snippet from a 1983 Le Naturaliste Canadien that suggests it could be used as a source, but will have to dig further to find the biblio details. If that fails, there's a Quebecois field guide at the library. Sasata (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know who this one is named after? Presumably the "Atkinson" Smith refers to on page 145?

Presumably; I mentioned Atkinson's name without explicitly stating that Smith named the mushroom after him. Sasata (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this article- it manages to combine the mycology of getting down and amongst leaves and moss with the mycology of "some overlooked 19th century booklet". Hope this is helpful. J Milburn (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; will try to replace that Quebec citation shortly. Sasata (talk) 02:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Circeus mentioned that he thinks the Mycoquebec.org site is sufficiently reliable as a source for Quebec distribution. Investigating further, I see that the new site Mycoportal (a new NSF-funded project aiming to catalogue and index fungal biodiversity and herbarium collections of fungi) has already integrated Mycoquebec.org's distribution data (see here and here), so I imagine that further evinces data reliability. What do you think? Sasata (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok- not ideal, but I think "it can also be found in Quebec" is not all that controversial! I'm happy to promote the article at this time. Great work, as ever. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]