Talk:Sclerodermatineae/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 10:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me taking three of your articles in quick succession- if you'd rather have some non-me input, let me know and I'll leave the next few.

I don't mind at all ... if everything goes according to plan, there should be plenty of fungus article articles for all interested people to review in the next 6 weeks! Sasata (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Great- I'll keep my eye on it! J Milburn (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• "This research was an extension of Binder's 1999 graduate work, in which he recognized the need to recognize the molecular differences of the sclerodermatoid fungi." Repetitive- would "argued for the need to recognize" work?

• Fixed my sloppiness. Sasata (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Paxillineae, Suillineae, Tapinellineae, and Coniophorineae" Presumably, these are worth redlinks?

• Done. Sasata (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• "Since its original description, there have been several phylogenetic studies investigating the Sclerodermatineae" Grammatically, would "the Sclerodermatineae" not be a plural, referring to the various taxa/individual fungi classified under the suborder (in the same way "the English" would be a plural)? How about "Since its original description, there have been several phylogenetic studies investigating the suborder." or "Since the suborder's original description, there have been several phylogenetic studies investigating the Sclerodermatineae"

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think Cas and the other Banksia people have spoilt us, but I'd love to see some kind of taxonomic tree- see here for an example. Listing all the species would be tedious (but perhaps not necessarily a waste of time), but you could put in brackets after the genus names "Approx. 10 species" or "1 species" or something. With four families and nine genera, that shouldn't be too difficult? I seem to remember that you did a "list of genera" article somewhere, but I can't find it now.

• This is a good idea; I was planning on eventually making a List of Sclerodermatineae species article, but a summary list is good here too. Sasata (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• The list article sounds like a great idea- do let me know if there's anything I can do to help, even if it's just to take a look once it gets to FLC. Currently, however, your numbers seem very much out of date; our article on Boletinellus, for instance, lists 8 species. On the other hand, the list in the genus article is unsourced, while your claim of 2 species is sourced; this is the kind of thing that can be updated as appropriate once the list article has been written. Obviously, I appreciate that this is not as precise a science as it could be... J Milburn (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• According to our article on the species, "Calostoma cinnabarina" is the wrong gender.

• Yes, and I should'a remembered this too ... fixed. Sasata (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Overall, very readable despite the technical subject matter. Sources seem appropriate, images are good. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks! Sasata (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to go ahead and promote now- the numbers of species you've listed may raise a few eyebrows, but this is something which can be changed in due course. J Milburn (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)