Talk:Mycena overholtsii/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, nice to see mushrooms popping up at GAC again.

"similar-appearing species" Very odd phrase

Tweaked. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Wilhelm Gerhard Solheim be redirected to Wilhelm Solheim (botanist)?

It sure should, done. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No available taxonomic information?

Taxonomic information is limited to begin with because the species has been lucky enough to avoid the generic name dance imposed by puppetmaster mycologists; I was not able to find any infrageneric classification. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"adnate, adnexed, or shallowly decurrent" Those links go to a variety of different places; one of them doesn't even mention fungi.

I'll amend adnation soon to include a fungal example; have wikt'd adnexed. (Is this better? The links still go to different places... ) Sasata (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mention the flesh twice in the description section

Removed one. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"non-diverticulate" Jargon

Removed. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"ixocutis" is not mentioned in cap cuticle

It is now. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"similar Mycenas" Can Mycena be used as a common name like that? How about "similar Mycena species" or something?

I don't really know the rule for this, but I'm following the example of A.H. Smith, who wrote a monograph on the genus. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"than M. overholtsii" than those of?

Yes, changed. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It has been reported in four US states, including South Dakota,[17] California, Washington and Wyoming" To me, "including" implies you aren't going to list them all

True; swapped "including" with a colon. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"but is not known in Oregon" Why is this significant?

The source mentions it specifically; I think the significance is to highlight the apparent absence from that state, despite being generally widely distributed in the Pacific Northwest. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The habitat and distribution section initially seems to imply that it is only found in North America

Tweaked text; better now? Sasata (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Washington is a dablink

Dabbed. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fungi of Asia?

Sure. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some inconsistency as to whether publishing locations are given for books

Should be consistent now. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is MykoWeb reliable?

It's borderline (I might swap out the citations if it was FAC), but its only citing uncontentious aspects of its appearance, so I think it's good enough here. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume ref 8, like ref 13, is a report? Mention?

Now in cite template format. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting on ref 18 is a little odd

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any publishers with articles could do with links. Couldn't hurt.

Done. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Little thing, but twice you jump from talking about the mushrooms of the species, to as if the mushrooms ARE the species. "mushrooms produced by the fungus ... The mushroom is characterized" and "some of the largest mushrooms of the genus Mycena.[8] The cap is" - see what I mean? Could do with some smoothing.

I see what you mean, and have tweaked the text a little bit, but I think the first example is ok. I alert the reader that the fungus produces a mushroom, and that the mushroom has a certain characteristic. Feel free to massage the text if you can make it less clunky. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images and stability check out. I made some small changes. On the subject of the apparent copying, have you considered contacting the publishers of the journal? I'd imagine you're more familiar with this kind of thing than me (I'm just a lowly unpublished undergrad) but it looks like it would be well within your rights to request attribution. J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick review, JM. As for the attribution, I don't really care that much, I just thought I'd make it official in case Wikipedia later gets accused of copyvio/plagiarism. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the article, promoting now. J Milburn (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]