Talk:Galerina sulciceps/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solidly-nice article... but he's been a pretty camera-shy fellow, I'm guessing :) First up:

In the lead: the sentence ending "...a series of poisonings in Indonesia in the 1930s resulted in 14 deaths." From consuming G. sulceps? (duh!, heh...but just making sure)

Clarified. Sasata (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check. Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Tax, the sentence "Rolf Singer's comprehensive taxonomical treatment of the Agaricales placed Galerina sulciceps in section Naucoriopsis of the genus Galerina; all of the poisonous Galerina belong to section Naucoriopsis.". Are there non-toxic Galerina?

Yes there are, of the ~250 species in the genus, only about half a dozen species (all in this section) are toxic. But I think discussion about these general aspects of Galerina toxicity is best left to the genus article. Sasata (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... good little redo in that paragraph, btw! Another question: Was section Naucoriopsis created by Singer specifically for appearance, toxicity, or a certain appearance that seemed to be associated with toxicity?

Actually it was Robert Kühner in 1935 who devised that sectional classification (have now added that to the article), for species that met certain criteria relating to fruit body shape and spore features. This was done before much information was known about the toxicity of these species. Sasata (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there enough for a Similar species section, what with the other Naucoriopsis and Gymnopus peronatus? Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think so... I'm reluctant to mention similar species unless I can find a source that explicitly discusses this. I suppose I could put in a pic of G. marginata with a caption like "G. marginata, a common toxic species in section Naucoriopsis" or a pic of Gymnopus peronatus ("Noted by Berkeley to bear resemblance to G. sulciceps in his original description of the species.) What do you think? Sasata (talk)

No need :) We don't want the cousin's picture without the fellow in his own article! Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a range map that I can put in the taxobox, but alas a photo of this may have to wait until my next trip to Indonesia... Sasata (talk) 04:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice map! Yes, when I first read the article, I figured you were having a difficult time getting an image... and are not a happy camper about that :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I definitely like to spread the fungal eye candy... I figure there's at least a slightly better chance of a photo "showing up" from somewhere now this article is on Wikipedia! Thanks for the review. Sasata (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Galerina sulciceps passes this review, and has been upgraded to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: Pass