 | Hygrophoropsis has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 16, 2016. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Hygrophoropsis appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 3 December 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Hygrophoropsis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 19:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- The lead strikes me a a little short for the length of the article.
- Now fattened and two paragraphs. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Do you perhaps have a source to cite for the second paragraph of the taxonomy section?
- Added a source for etymology and removed the bit I couldn't find a direct source for. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- "Later mycologists thought that the forked gills" Later than what?
- I find the Singer quote rather difficult to decipher
- "In 1975, he added species with inamyloid but cyanophilous spores, whose characteristics otherwise aligned with the type species." What were these species?
- Added. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- "These two genera are sister to" Which two, specifically? You've named a lot!
- Clarified. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- How about a table for the species list? I love what you did with list of Armillaria species
- Ok, done! Sasata (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Shame we don't have any more pictures, but I'm certainly not seeing any...
- I was satisfied to get pictures of three different species for this particular genus ... Sasata (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm struggling a bit with your Schröter source (also Bas et al, Watling and Heinemann & Rammeloo). From the formatting, I'm not fully clear as to what kind of publication it is/they are.
- Your Vellinga source seems to be lacking some info; is it not a short article from Fungi?
- Does "Bulletin Mensuel de la Société Linnéenne de Lyon" need to be italicised?
At first look through, this is a really nice article. Please check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Your edits were dandy. Thanks for reviewing! Sasata (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I am happy that this is ready for promotion, so I will promote now. Here are a couple of other bits to think about:
- Would "circumscribed" with a link to Circumscription (taxonomy) not be preferable to "conceived" in the opening lines? Or am I missing a technicality?
- I know this is a bit of a pain, but do you have a reference for the claim that many of the species are poorly known? It's clearly true, but some people might see that as OR.
- Would there perhaps be space for any common names in the species table? Or do we only really have a couple?
- You're missing a location for CRC Press.
A great article. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks again. I implemented your final suggestions except for adding common names; I think there's only one (for H. aurantiaca), and this is mentioned elsewhere in the article. Sasata (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)