Talk:Hygrophoropsis/GA1

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Sasata in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 19:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply


Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • The lead strikes me a a little short for the length of the article.
  • Do you perhaps have a source to cite for the second paragraph of the taxonomy section?
  • "Later mycologists thought that the forked gills" Later than what?
  • Reworded in a fashion similar to what we did in H. aurantiaca. Sasata (talk)
  • I find the Singer quote rather difficult to decipher
  • Added an introductory bit; is this better? Sasata (talk)
  • "In 1975, he added species with inamyloid but cyanophilous spores, whose characteristics otherwise aligned with the type species." What were these species?
  • "These two genera are sister to" Which two, specifically? You've named a lot!
  • Shame we don't have any more pictures, but I'm certainly not seeing any...
  • 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?
  • The ref formatting deficiencies have all been remedied. Sasata (talk)

At first look through, this is a really nice article. Please check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply