Talk:Stropharia caerulea/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 16:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review, but I may be a bit slow. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you look again at the Bas source? It looks like something resembling an edited collection/encyclopedia rather than a monograph (meaning citing the chapter/entry in question would be better) and Google Books is suggesting that you have the wrong publisher.

Fixed source details. Sasata (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're inconsistent when it comes to supplying locations for book publishers

Publisher locations now given for all. Sasata (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is your year wrong on the Norvell source? I've added a JSTOR link to an article with the correct title/issue/volume but the wrong year. Seems that there are at least a couple of articles with the same title/author...

Year was incorrect, have corrected it to 2010. Sasata (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"although this name is more typically used to refer to Stropharia aeruginosa" That's quite a strong claim- is it explicitly made in your source, or is the source just an example of the name being used to refer to S. aeruginosa?

The latter, unfortunately. I realize it's OR-ish, but I want to get the point across that this name is hardly ever used for this species (only once in my many sources). Suggestions on how to deal with this without a source that explicitly says so? Perhaps I should just leave out this solitary example of putatively incorrect common name usage? Sasata (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like "The French biologist Regis Courtecuisse uses the name "verdigris agaric", but numerous other authors use this name to refer to Stropharia aeruginosa." (along with a lot of citations to other guidebooks). That strikes me as avoiding OR while still making clear that this is not exactly standard. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, done. Sasata (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Gills on the cap underside" This is a little odd- as opposed to which gills?

Removed underside. Sasata (talk)

"protolog" is jargon

Dejargonized. Sasata (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A lookalike with whitish gill edges" This doesn't really distinguish it from the previous lookalike

Tweaked text. Sasata (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English descriptions of the images would be a good addition to Commons

Done. Sasata (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few fixes, and will take another look at the article in the coming days. A nice little article, as ever! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some more bits:

"The colour of the cap depends on its age, ranging from pale blue-green to yellow, yellowish with a whitish zone around the margin." Are you missing a word or two here?
"sinuate" strikes me as undefined jargon
odor or odour
"The mycelia of Stropharia caerulea forms" I know I've mentioned similar before, but "mycelia" is surely plural, meaning that "form" would be preferred to "forms"?

Please double-check my copyediting. In all, this a really nicely written article, and a flick through my books is revealing nothing significant missed. I'll be happy to promote once you've made these fixes. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made these changes here. Thanks for reviewing! Sasata (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great- promoting now! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]