Talk:Lepiota babruzalka

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, I'll jot some queries as I go....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Anything at all can be added about infrageneric relationships? Big genus....

• Unfortunately, the authors did not include any molecular work in their study, and did not discuss infrageneric relationships. Else Vellinga, in her "Nomenclatural Overview of Lepiotaceous Fungi (Agaricaceae) Version 4.8 (2010)" speculated that it might be in the "Leucoagaricus/Leucocoprinus clade", but even though she is a recognized authority on the genus, I didn't feel it warranted a mention here (I doubt she's seen the species in hand). Sasata (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• There are alot of caps in the early sentences of the description section. Any way any can be folded in would be great...might not be possible but would be good if could be done....

• Good point. I reworded a few. Sasata (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• There are alot of bamboo species - are there any more specific details of bamboo genera hosts etc.? No mention of soil type or flat/swampy/montane/hilly terrain etc.

• There's 22 species in Kerala State apparently, but the authors didn't mention anything more about habitat than what is already in the article. Sasata (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

• Damn I hate it when they do that...oh well....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

• No speculation on edibility at all....?

• None. Sasata (talk)

• Fair enough...I wouldn't be game to try one given the genus....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Other than that, a nice tight read....Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks much for reviewing! Sasata (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - another concised and clinically executed fungus GA. Nice work. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)