Talk:Agaricus hondensis/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Reid,iain james (talk · contribs) 21:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this, I just need about a day or two to go over it. Iainstein (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• First off, the lead lacks info from the systematics section and has to little from the similar species and description sections

• Lead is now expanded. Sasata (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Causes severe gastrointestinal upset" might be correct scientifically, but flows better and makes more sense as "Causes severe gastrointestinal problems"

• Gastrointestinal upset is a common term, even in the lay literature. Gastrointestinal "problems" is vague and doesn't indicate what kind of problem it is. Sasata (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Systematics

• What does the generic name mean?

• This info is discussed at the genus article. Sasata (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• It reads as if it is missing info, probably because it mentions nothing about Murrill naming other species, and never even mentions that he said if differed from its synonyms

• Good point. I've added more information about the other Agaricus species that he described simultaneously.

• "based on collections he made under redwoods" should probably be "based on fungi (or mushrooms) he collected from under redwoods"

• Either is correct. Sasata (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "was formerly classified in the section Xanthodermatei." should xanthodermatei be linked, also, if it was formerly classified in it, what is it classified in now?

• I've tweaked the wording (was formerly classified"->"has traditionally been classified", and glossed a definition for section Xanthodermatei (nowhere to link to currently, but it will eventually eventually be covered in the genus article). Kerrigan et al. did not make any new sectional assignments for this species in their 2005 publication, and I haven't seen any changes in the status in the intervening literature. Sasata (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Molecular analysis, has shown that it, along with" shouldn't it be "A molecular analysis"

• Ok. Sasata (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• "comprise a basal lineage" > "comprise of a basal lineage"

• That would be incorrect; see, for example, this. Sasata (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• It should go into more detail on the synonyms, like who named them, how they were said to differentiate, and what their name means.

• I've expanded this. Sasata (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Why does it have quotes? should be "in a clade of related species, described by _____ as being "erect, sylvan species with weak or spatially restricted reactions and some tendencies toward rufescence.""

• Paraphrased this bit so quotes aren't necessary. Sasata (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• goes a bit to technical in the next sentence and stays technical, should be simplified a bit.

• Tried to simplify this part. Better? Sasata (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Good

• Any cladograms available to add to the section, after all, it does mention a phylogenetic analysis.

Thanks for the helpful review. Let me know if there's anything else you think needs improving. Sasata (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
More to come. Iainstein (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Description

• "is dry, smooth, whitish, and a pale pinkish-brown to pinkish-gray" what do smooth, dry, and the colour have to do with each other, and why are they listed in the same sentence? Should probably be split into different sentences.

• Reworded. Sasata (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• explain "phenolic"

• The term is linked in the lead and at first occurrence in the article. Sasata (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• "and packed closely together" > "and are packed closely together"

• Done. Sasata (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• "is coloured white or discolours grey" > "is coloured white, but discolours grey"\

• Tweaked prose. Sasata (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• the spore image should be moved upwards so the top of it is on the right of the spores paragraph

• Done. Sasata (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That it all. Unless some get introduced while they are being fixed. Iainstein (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Additional changes made here. Sasata (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Images are good
Article is stable
Neutral article

Good job, no further requests. This article is GA status. Iainstein (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)