This is a newly described species of mushroom; the article makes use of all available sources and, I feel, discusses everything one could hope to know about the species. It passed GAC with compliments from the reviewer, and I look forward to your thoughts. The last FAC failed due to comprehensiveness issues- there was another source available, and I had not referenced it. After some work, I managed to get hold of a hardcopy of the other source, and I have added in what I can. I have also made all reasonable efforts to acquire a free photo but, alas, to no avail. The best I could do is to use Template:External media to link to this picture, which is legally hosted on another site, but which could not be used here under the NFCC. If people think that is a good idea, I'll add it to the article. J Milburn (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Given that Contu has only two authors, why not just list both instead of using et al.?
Nitpicking, but be consistent in using "et al." vs "et al"
Sources seem reliable, although I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Further sources comment: My concern expressed at the last FAC, about overreliance on a single source, was ably answered in that discussion. The Italian source which was anticipated (Contu et al) is now in place. So far as I am able to judge, I think that criteria 1(c) and 2(c) are fully met. Brianboulton (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Support Comments I supported this last time, so no real problems. Nitpicks follow Jimfbleak -talk to me? 07:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
"However" and "moreover" seem overused to me.
The species is most similar in appearance to G. arenophilus and G. fulgens, but can be differentiated from both. Despite the similarities, it is not closely related to either, suggesting convergent evolution — the fact that it can be differentiated is axiomatic, I'd prefer something like the species is most similar in appearance to G. arenophilus and G. fulgens, but it is not closely related to either, suggesting convergent evolution
I've specified that they can be differentiated by morphology, but I can remove it altogether if you prefer. J Milburn (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
can easily be differentiated from G. maritimus as it lives among grass — query use of "easily" the id seems to rely on two things; spore size, which doesn't sound easy, and where it is growing. Relying on habitat for id, especially for a species whose substrates are not fully known, may be easy, but seems dubious.
The source does specify "easily", but I guess that's not entirely neutral; sure, it's an easy differentiation for a Gymnopilus specialist, but perhaps not the rest of us. I have rephrased, and removed "easily". J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I know your feelings about this, but a sketch would make it easy to visualise this thing. Self-made maps, diagrams and sketches (like your cladogram) are perfectly acceptable, especially where no free image can be found
How do you feel about something like this as a possibility? J Milburn (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
"… the spectabilis–imperialis clade; a clade including …" this seems more grammatical to me: "… the spectabilis–imperialis clade, a clade that includes…" and it avoids consecutive sentences with semicolons.
I changed it, but went for "which includes". If this is technically wrong, hit me. J Milburn (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
No need for violence, I just changed it myself. "which" typically follows a comma. Sasata (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
"The yellow (brown at the bottom of the stem) flesh can be up to 15 mm (0.6 in) thick and does not bruise." This thickness refers to the cap flesh, I assume? (stem is only 8 mm wide)
since there's a Guzman-Davalos et al. in both the refs and the "Works cited", maybe the year should be specified in the short-form citations to avoid possible confusion? (or maybe not, I suppose people can figure out which document is being cited from the page ranges… your call)
Thanks very much for your comments. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Support only really 1 1/2 sources, but that goes with the territory. "...on coastal sand dunes around 10 metres (33 ft) from the ocean." presumably means from the high tide mark, which oddly doesn't even redirect anywhere. Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. I've rephrased to "from the high tide line", as that's what I've always heard it referred to as. I'm also amazed we have no article- we have ordinary high water mark, which is about the closest thing, but not redirect-worthy. J Milburn (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Support. Everything good now; the article comprehensively covers a little-known species. Ucucha 13:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Comments:
Why are there no imperial conversions in the lead?
Didn't think they were necessary, but I've added them. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
"(the area where the spore was attached to the sterigmatum)"—don't you mean sterigma?
Thanks very much for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Why do we have external images within the body of the text instead in an External links section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
We have a template for it, I assumed it was OK. I added it in response to Jim's concerns. I can move to an external links section if you would prefer, but that would perhaps remove the utility currently offered as something to go alongside the description. I'm happy either way. J Milburn (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Both WP:EL and WP:LAYOUT say they shouldn't be in the body of the article, rather in external links. But, Template:External media says to use it inline temporarily. So, I guess we don't worry about it for now, but I don't want to see the fact that it's used here as an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS reason for other editors to start adding external links to the body of articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.