Talk:Leotia lubrica/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll review these babies. Sasata (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments
 * "Olive-green in colour" I think it would be better to say it has an olive green tint, this conforms more to the field guide descriptions I've read, and jibes better with the color of the taxobox image
 * Rephrased, I was aware of that. I personally wouldn't call it olive green or ochre, I've always seen it as lighter than both, but I have to go with what the sources say. J Milburn (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "However, Christiaan Hendrik Persoon, basing his work on that of Scopoli" I'm not sure what this statement means
 * Rephrased. I had the taxonomy section arranged differently earlier. J Milburn (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * you could cite Persoon's 1794 work and give a link with this; Bulliard's Herbier de la France is here
 * I don't think the Persoon link is actually his publication that gave the description under the new name. It was published a few year's later than the mentioned in the book by Bi, and it cites an earlier work. The Bulliard link, though, is definitely worth including. However, how you go about citing a work like that, I don't know. Does what I've done work? J Milburn (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * link valid to correct name (botany)
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * publisher for Species Fungorum is CAB International
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * it's stem in the lead, but stalk in the description
 * Done. I've gone with stalk; I want to stress how this isn't a "mushroom", as such.
 * "with Charles McIlvaine even consider it good." fix
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * the single image doesn't do it justice; could you possible fit in a group shot-there's lots of nice ones to choose from at MO. You could perhaps remove the micro characteristics subheader and fit it in left-side in the description. If the article is expanded a couple of paragraphs from the two sources below there should be ample room :)
 * I've given the group shot pride of place, as it provides more info about the environment and ecology than does the lone "mushroom". I've moved the other pic down. J Milburn (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional sources and info: ,
 * I've included some details from the jstor link- most of it is very technical and specific, and probably doesn't belong in an article this short. I will give it another look later. J Milburn (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've included some from the other article but, again, it's a bit too technical for me. I'll have another look later. J Milburn (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * McKnight's field guide calls it a "slippery cap". Should also mention (same source): the stem surface is "scurfy" (or jargon-free equivalent)—this is apparent in the image if you look at full magnification; the spores are hyaline
 * Mentioned the common name and the spores, but I have already included details about the grains on the stalk surface- is this not the same thing? J Milburn (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, all good. Sasata (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * the stalk is "hollow, or more often filled with a gel"; "It is the most common Leotia in North America"
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * more common names: "green slime fungus", "gumdrop fungus". Also found in New Zealand.< ref name=Dickinson1982>
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * one source suggests that the greenish color of L. atrovirens may be due to infection by an imperfect fungus on L. lubrica, Arora says the species may intergrade ; the Zhong and Pfister paper mentioned above should shed more light on their relationship
 * Ok, had a bash. If you could have a look at the second para of the taxonomy section and make sure I haven't messed up... J Milburn (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * another name: "ochre jelly club". This source calls it edible but bland.
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 15:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Refs

Ok, I think I've dealt with everything, and I've expanded the lead. Thanks for your thorough review- I'd be happy to look into any other issues. J Milburn (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good JM, I believe all the GA criteria are met, am passing the article now. Sasata (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)