Talk:Thelephora palmata

File:Stinkende Lederkoralle Thelephora palmata.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Stinkende Lederkoralle Thelephora palmata.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 17, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-03-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Thelephora palmata is a widespread species of clavarioid fungus. It is commonly known as the stinking earthfan for its fetid odor, which intensifies after drying.Photo: H. Krisp

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 11:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'll take this. Please note that I am not anywhere near an expert in mushrooms, so expect some questions which may seem very basic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Fine
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Fine
	2c. it contains no original research.	Fine
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Fine
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Within definition
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fine
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fine
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Comments

1

• Are families italicised? The Thelephoraceae article has it in italics.

• Only taxa below family level are italicized (I've fixed the Thelephoraceae article). Sasata (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• The wedge-like tips are whitish when young before darkening to grayish brown. - Perhaps "young, but darken as the fungus matures."

• Done. Sasata (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Why does Scopoli get a descriptor when nobody else did?

• There's a lot of names in that section, and it would be repetitive to give descriptors to all (they're all linked anyway). As the primary author, Scopoli deserved a couple of extra words :-) Sasata (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• The final two paragraphs of Taxonomy look like they could be merged (both have a little bit about the shape)

• Sure, done. Sasata (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• warted with fine spines measuring 0.5–1.5 µm long - Feels like you're missing a comma after warted

• Added. Sasata (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• The fungus contains the pigment thelephoric acid - Wouldn't this be best in the description

• Done. Sasata (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

3

• A little light on content. Is anything here worth using?

• I've checked all of my sources and scraped what extra material I thought was worthwhile. Many of the JSTOR-indexed papers are single mentions from forays, or other unusable brief mentions. Although the species has been frequently mentioned in the literature, there simply hasn't been a lot of substantial information accumulated (evidenced by the high citation:prose ratio of this article!). Sasata (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Spotchecks

• Bessette & Bessette looks fine, although I have a question: they say the tips are sometimes (not always) whitish, and compare the tips of the to spatulas (not spoons). Any reason for the discrepancy?

• Comparison to spatulas comes from the jargon term spathulate, which essentially means spoon-shaped. Will look at some more sources and see if I can come to a literature consensus about tip color (I've seen some pics with non-whitish tips...) Sasata (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• I've think I've covered the bases about tip color by adding "or paler than the lower parts." Sasata (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Bi checks out, no questions
• I'm getting a DOI error on Sesli

• Removed extraneous comma from DOI. Sasata (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Otherwise looks okay... have to AGF on this, as the sources are almost all offline. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Putting this on hold to deal with my comments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, this looks good now. Passing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing, Crisco! Sasata (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)