Talk:Atheniella adonis

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mycena adonis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jappalang (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Just need some clarification below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold, pending clarification work.

• "Neither placement is considered correct."

  So what is the correct name of the species? Or do you mean neither of Singer's placement is correct? If that is the case, when did it revert to Mycena or were Singer's placements rejected?

• "The gills are ascending-adnate or attached by a tooth, subdistant to close, with 14–16 gills reaching the stem in addition to two or three tiers of lamellulae (short gills that do not extend fully from the cap edge to the stem)."

  I have difficulty understanding the first part (ascending-adnate). Can this be clarified?

I think other than these; the articles pretty much can be read by a layman for an understanding on this mushroom. Jappalang (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! I hope these edits resolve your concerns. Sasata (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The "ascending-adnate" part is well explained (to me at least) but I am not quite sure over Singer's placements. Do you mean the scientific community did not reject his placements, saying that all names derived from his schemes are just the same as if they are placed under Mycena? Binomial nomenclature and Synonym (taxonomy)#Bontany do not really help much. Jappalang (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Mycologists of the past used to have great fun transferring taxa around to different genera depending on how they believed the genera should be described and what characters they believed were important. As a result, many older taxa have long lists of synonyms. In this case, I have clarified that it was Singer himself who changed his mind and moved it back to Mycena. Sasata (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That works for me. Passing this article as GA. Jappalang (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mycena adonis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716083053/http://www.fungi4schools.org/Reprints/ENGLISH_NAMES.pdf to http://www.fungi4schools.org/Reprints/ENGLISH_NAMES.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)