Talk:Russula brevipes/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Gaff (talk · contribs) 23:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first GA review, so it will rely on Good Faith of the article creator to some degree. It will take me some time to familiarize myself with the topic as well, since I am not a mycologist.—Gaff ^ταλκ 23:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking on the review! I'm not a mycologist either :) Sasata (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"They are more platable" might work better than "Their quality is improved" (style points, not essential) in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the lead. Not knowing anything about lobster mushrooms, it was a little confusing. Perhaps some copyedits might help clarify. I'm also not sure there needs to be two paragraphs, since the second is only two sentences and the ideas are not that far removed.

I've implemented your suggested wording, and massaged and expanded the lead. Good? Sasata (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This might only be a problem in Firefox, but the text from indented paragraph in the Taxonomy section is running over onto the floating Mycomorphbox.

Hmm ... I'm using Firefox too and don't have that problem. Does the expanded lead help? Sasata (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is more geared to peer review process, but adding alt text (Wikipedia:Alternative text for images) with text description of the File:Russula brevipes.JPG in the taxobox, and other images, is important to improve accessibility for visually impaired readers. Current alt text simply read "Russula brevipes.JPG". See [1] for others.

ALT text added. Sasata (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any more info about the bioactive compounds? Without making the article about the compounds, it would be nice to have some context.

I've added a sentence with some background info about this class of compounds. Sasata (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"yellowish-brownish discolorations in age." Sentence is a bit awkward. Do you mean "with age." This might just be me reading it the wrong way.

I've copyedited this section, hopefully it reads better now. Sasata (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Similar species and how to differentiate might be expanded? One of your refs points out some of the features (gill spacing) that distinguish R. breviceps and R. delica. It sounds like the story is really complicated. You have listed similararities with other species (the subalpine waxy cap, and others), but not not so for breviceps and delica, even though a lot of the taxonomy confusion focuses there. "A description not accurately matching the North American counterparts" could be more detailed?

Good points both; I've added a bit about R. delica to the similar species section, and described Fries's early species concept in "Taxonomy". Sasata (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Shaffer defined the varieties acrior and megaspora in 1964 from Californian specimens" -- consider pointing out that these are varieties of breviceps, since the preceding paragraph is about some complicated taxonomy.

Done. Sasata (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once these are addressed, I ~~will~~ hopefully be able to pass as GA. —Gaff ^ταλκ 16:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sasata: are you still interested in working on this? —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, somehow I missed your later additions (drawback of a watchlist with 10,000+ items) ... I will work on this tonight after kiddies are asleep. Sasata (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get it together. (joke). Take your time. Just thought you forgot about it. —Gaff ^ταλκ 01:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, all comments addressed ... article is better thanks to your suggestions! Sasata (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"type collection" is that the same as Type (biology), or (less likely) type genus or type species? If so, consider providing the correct wikilink.

It's stuck in a quote, so according to WP:LINKSTYLE it should probably not be linked. Sasata (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know! —Gaff ^ταλκ 22:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Parasitised" and "parasitized." Is one British and the other US? What is typical in Canada? Either spelling is correct, but article should be consistent.

Changed to US spelling. Sasata (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not sure both need to be linked at beginning of article and at end. Same with the Hypomyces lactifluorum. However, it is probably fine, since one is in the lead and the other at the end.

I also think it's generally ok to link in the lead and later in the article (especially if the links are separated by a page or more of text). Sasata (talk)

"transforming it into an edible" -- transforming them (fruit bodies) ? or just start paragraph with "The fruit body," then keep the it, since that is how the rest of the paragraph goes.?

Grammar fixed. Sasata (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"short-stemmed russula, short-stalked white Russula" Should it be capitalized or no, since it is common name? Please check and make consistent throughout.

Lower-cased. Sasata (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From automated checker: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 1000 meters, use 1000 meters, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 1000 meters. I fixed it.

General comments[edit]

* I'm trying really hard to give you a challenging GA review that we both feel comfortable with. The article looks good to me and I have compared it with some of your other Russula contributions. This will obviously pass GA criteria. I will keep picking away, but if you find that I am taking to long, feel free to ask me to stop and I will either pass or ask for a second opinion. Since this is my first review, I want to make sure you are not short changed. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An aside (not for this article): Shaffer: There is no WP article on Robert L Shaffer (mycologist, not lawyer), (but maybe there should be?). There is one on a different Shaffer, or rather, Julius Schäffer, which you created. Interesting that both worked on Russula. http://www.lib.umich.edu/faculty-history/faculty/robert-shaffer/memoir

I think there are sufficient sources that indicate notability for Robert L. Shaffer (mycologist); I'll whip up a stub soonish. Sasata (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]