Talk:Amanita ravenelii/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will review shortly. Just saving as per the new instructions... Feels like ages since I've reviewed one of yours- everyone else beats me there!

I was gonna use the template, but I don't think I need it...

"it grows solitary" Odd phrase- I normally use "solitarily"

Ok. Sasata (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"somewhat truncated to attenuated." Link?

Glossed. Sasata (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really make sense to describe the edibility as "unknown or inedible"- if it's unknown it's unknown, and if it's known to be inedible it's not unknown. I'd go with inedible- no source has explicitly called it unknown that you have cited.

Actually, the source I have cited for unknown edibility (Bessette et al., 2007) calls the edibility unknown. Some sources like to "play it safe" and define the edibility all questionable or little-known mushrooms "unsafe" or "not recommended" or "possibly poisonous" when in reality, the edibility is better described as "unknown". Here I present all options that I've found in the literature and the reader can make their own choice. Sasata (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I certainly appreciate that- it does raise the question of the category, though. Placing the page in the inedible category suggests a degree of certainty. I'm not gonna stall the promotion on that point, but it's something to consider. J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"does not have the pale yellow to brownish-orange, large conical warts," That doesn't read that well- something up with the commas?

Correct; 1st comma removed. Sasata (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you spell out "Amanita" in some specific names, but not others?

Because it is poor form to start sentences (& paragraphs, & sections) with abbreviations. I have reworded so to maintain the abbreviations for consistency. Sasata (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It has also been reported growing north of Baja California.[12]" North of Baja California would be California, surely? Or do you mean " in the north of..."? If so, perhaps clarify it's in Mexico?

fixed to "northern", and specified Mexico. Sasata (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No word on which trees it likes beyond "mixed woodland"?

Not specifically for this species, but I added a sentence about section Lepidella in general. Sasata (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's preferred growing style (solitary etc) is not actually mentioned in the article body, but is in the lead.

Rectified & reffed. Sasata (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not the most thrilling of mushrooms (although it does look pretty cool!) but a fine little article, no doubt about that. Sources and illustrations are great- I'd be more than happy to promote once these little niggles are looked into. J Milburn (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the excellent suggestions JM, the article has definitely improved. Sasata (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted, thanks for the speedy reply. J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]