Talk:Psilocybe makarorae/GA1
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 10:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Claiming this one now. Review to follow later today. J Milburn (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- The lead could probably benefit from an expansion; also, you don't distinguish the species from the mushroom all that well.
- "In his 1996 book "Psilocybin mushrooms of the world", Paul Stamets noted "that the two authors work closely with, are consulted by, and paid by law-enforcement officials to help in the prosecution of unlucky collectors."[3]" I'm not sure that the use of this quote is all that neutral. It creates an impression of The Man against the innocent collectors. Also, books should be in the form of The Book Title, not "The book title".
- LOL at "The Man". I see what you mean, but I couldn't resist adding this interesting factoid from a reliable source written by a Psilocybe authority. Is it perhaps the use of "unlucky" in the quote that gives the non-neutral impression? Do you think it'd be alright if I kept the fact, but rewrote more neutrally in my own words?
- type locality is a dablink.
- "Guzman's" Guzman has not been introduced. Also, is it not Guzmán?
- "The veil of young fruit bodies is cortinate—resembling the cobweb-like partial veil found in Cortinarius species)" Unopened brackets?
- "has an apical pore." A little jargony
- "they are clamped," Again
- "They are hyaline (translucent), thin-walled, clamped, with necks that are 3–5 μm long." and clamped?
- "but narrower (4–8 μm) wide" narrower wide?
- "hypodermium" Link/explanation?
- You could perhaps bump the similar species section by moving the discussion of how the species is distinguished from its close relatives there. You could list the 6 species recognised by Guzmán, as they are referred to by Johnston and Buchanan.
- Could we have this added to Template:Psilocybe mushrooms, and the template added to the bottom of the page?
- The article is a little awkward to look at because of all the material bunched around the description section. If you're perhaps willing to do away with the mycomorphbox, this looks much neater, to my eyes. This is just a thought; if you can see some other way to rejig everything, feel free to go with that.
Hope this is helpful. Images check out, sources are good. J Milburn (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)