Talk:Hygrophoropsis/GA1

GA Review

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

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

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

• The lead strikes me a a little short for the length of the article.

• Now fattened and two paragraphs. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Do you perhaps have a source to cite for the second paragraph of the taxonomy section?

• Added a source for etymology and removed the bit I couldn't find a direct source for. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• "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?

• Added. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• "These two genera are sister to" Which two, specifically? You've named a lot!

• Clarified. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• How about a table for the species list? I love what you did with list of Armillaria species

• Ok, done! Sasata (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Shame we don't have any more pictures, but I'm certainly not seeing any...

• I was satisfied to get pictures of three different species for this particular genus ... Sasata (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

• Your edits were dandy. Thanks for reviewing! Sasata (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)