Talk:Stropharia caerulea

GA Review

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

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

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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• "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)

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)

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

• "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)

• "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)

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

• Done. Sasata (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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