Talk:Gyromitra caroliniana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Gyromitra caroliniana has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 5, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 29, 2012.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Carolina false morels should not be eaten because they may contain a compound that, when digested, breaks down into a rocket fuel propellant?
WikiProject Fungi (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fungi, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fungi on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 22:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Will review shortly. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

  • "This grouping comprises species that have, in maturity, coarsely reticulate ascospores with multiple blunt spines that originate from the reticulum. " - tried to figure out "reticulate" and "reticulum" - to do with a network?
  • Yes, I glossed a definition. Sasata (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • "In 1969, Erich Heinz Benedix believed this characteristic sufficiently unique to be worthy of designation as a separate genus" - referring to the reticulum?
  • Correct, clarified. Sasata (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • "and advocated the abandonment of the specific epithet caroliniana" - but apparently this was not accepted? - unsuccessfully advocated?
  • I'd prefer not to add that, as it's not in any source; although the epithet is still in use, this publication is fairly recent (2009), and sometimes things move slowly in mycological taxonomy. 16:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • "Common habitats include near stumps" - in the vicinity of stumps?
  • Yes, but isn't "near" more succinct than "in the vicinity of"? Sasata (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • One dead link marked. - no. 28
  • It worked for me just now. Sasata (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Wonderful photos, except for the last one that isn't very clear.
  • I agree, the mushrooms are somewhat obscured by the background, but it's an informative habitat shot: these mushrooms fruit in spring when most of the ground is covered with dead brown leaves and green plants are just beginning to sprout (i.e., they're often difficult to see in reality!). Sasata (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I made some small edits that you're free to change.[1]
  • Changes look fine, thanks. Sasata (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Interesting article but I do think "reticulum" needs explanation. Also, what's the difference between a true morel and a false morel?
  • A true morel is one in the genus Morchella; false morels are those that roughly resemble them and have similar culinary properties, but are in other genera. False morel is linked in the lead. Sasata (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

MathewTownsend (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on this review, Mathew. Sasata (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • But where on the fungus is the reticulum? (Don't want to harp on this but it confuses me.) MathewTownsend (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Not on the mushroom, but on the spores: "... coarsely reticulate ascospores (i.e., with a network of ridges on the surface)". Please reword if you can make it more clear. Sasata (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
  • ok, revert my addition if it's not right. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
    b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, summary style and list incorporation:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
    b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    c. no original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    no edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: