Talk:Battarrea phalloides/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Starting to review the article based on Good article criteria:
 * 1)  Well-written: See notes below. prose is clear, spelling and grammar are correct, and complies with the manual of style guidelines.
 * 2)  Factually accurate and verifiable: See notes below. Excellent overview.
 * 3)  Broad in its coverage: covers common sections: Taxonomy/naming, Description, Edibility/toxicity, Distribution/habitat
 * 4)  Neutral: I'm considering the phalloides v. stevenii debate within this neutrality criteria. If stevenii is to redirect here, it should be mentioned within the "Habitat" section (also in the "Edibility" section with just a "phalloides and stevenii are considered inedible" type sentence.) If stevenii were to have its own article, then the current construction (just mentioning the debate in the Taxonomy section) is sufficient. Which leads me to the question on whether conspecific species get their own articles or are they dealt with in the same article.
 * 5)  Stable: No problems.
 * 6)  Illustrated: Three images, all Creative Commons with proper attribution.

Signed maclean (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Notes as I review...
 * References "Index Fungorum - Names Record. Retrieved 2009-07-25." & "Authorities & Vocabularies (Library of Congress): Sandy stiltball. Retrieved 2009-07-20." & "AMP - Checklists of Arizona Fungi. Retrieved 2009-07-19." - please list publishers as a separate field (eg. |publisher= xx ).
 * Done. Sasata (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In "Taxonomy", "...stevenii differs in the more orange-tawny, slightly larger..." - perhaps 'stevenii differs by being more orange'? or 'stevenii was described as being more orange...'?
 * In "Taxonomy", "more coarsely scaly stripe" - should this be 'stipe'?
 * Have refactored the sloppy sentences above to read: "According to mycologist Roy Watling, B. stevenii differs in having spores that are colored more orange-tawny, slightly larger (5–6.5 x 5.75–7 µm, as opposed to 4.5–5.25 x 4.5–5.75 µm), and less ornamented. Further, B. stevenii is thought to have a much greater basidioma size, a more coarsely scaly stipe, and lack of mucilage in the volva and the innermost parts of the stem." Sasata (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In "Taxonomy", "An analysis of a number of European specimens..." - is this sentence cited to the Chinese study?
 * In "Description", "...color. Arora notes that..." - Can an adjective be used to describe who/what Arora is? or a first name to indicate it is indeed a person.
 * I just took the name out instead... people can check the source to see who said it. Sasata (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are several instances of switching between 'centimetres' and 'cm'. Is it a template issue or can it be made consistent. I think there is an option of spelling out the first instance and using 'cm' for the rest.
 * Good idea, have done as you suggested (first use in lead is unabbreviated). Sasata (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In "Habitat", "...level up to up to 2,550 m" - the 'up to up to' is a little awkward. Can this be reworded?
 * Inadvertent word duplication on my part (and sloppy proofreading) - fixed. Sasata (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Intro, "typically reach 20 cm" - this is from the intro but I don't see where it is in the body.
 * Fixed, should have been 40 cm. Sasata (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I also don't think "typical agaric with stem and gills" is in the body, at least I didn't notice any mention of gills
 * It now begins the description section. Sasata (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Intro, "...appearance appears..." - can this be re-worded?
 * Done. Sasata (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Boost the Intro with a word from the "Edibility" section.
 * Sure, have mentioned "inedible". Sasata (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In "Taxonomy", there seems to be a stray close-bracket: "5.75 µm)"
 * Fixed. Sasata (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In "Taxonomy", can this "Chinese scientists considered them to be independent species." be elaborated upon? Was this mushroom the focus of an experiment and their conclusion was that they are independent species? or did they just assume them to be independent in the literature? I'm looking for a more clear word than 'considered' or to what degree did they work to prove this.
 * I'd love to elaborate, but the paper is in Chinese and I'm working from the English abstract which says only "Battarrea phalloides and B. stevenii of the family Battarreaceae are regarded as independent species by the authors according to the materials from China. Descriptions, illustrations and photos for them are given. A key to the both species is also provided." Normally, I try to avoid a citing a "big statement" by referring only to the abstract, but on the flip side I also thought the article would be less complete by not mentioning these findings. A key may be that the study is based on Chinese materials, and there may be regional differences in specimens involved that might explain differing results, but of course that's just speculation. I have, however, specified in that sentence that the Chinese scientists were using Chinese material, so the reader is free to draw their own conclusions. Sasata (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just curious: if phalloides and stevenii are conspecific, would there be a stevenii redirect here?
 * Sure, in the absence of a ''stevenii' page, a redirect to this article makes sense. Now redirected. Sasata (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Would it be worth mentioning where (geographically) stevenii can be found in the "Habitat" section?
 * Yes, I have included some distribution information now. Sasata (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll be back later today to get to the rest after I consult my sources. Sasata (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)