Talk:Scutellinia scutellata/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:  (a) the prose is clear (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines
 * 2)  Factually accurate and verifiable: a couple questions below regarding the accuracy of a reference. Passes random fact-checks, all sources reliable, properly cited.
 * 3)  Broad in its coverage: covers common sections: Taxonomy/naming, Description, Edibility/toxicity, Distribution/habitat
 * 4)  Neutral.
 * 5)  Stable.
 * 6)  Illustrated: 3 images, either Creative Commons or Public Domain.

Signed maclean (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Notes as I review...
 * Intro "Common in North America and Europe, as well as recorded in every continent, S. scutellata is found on rotting wood and in other damp habitats, typically growing in small groups, sometimes forming clusters." - there are a lot of parts to this sentence. It would be easier to follow if it were broken up into 2 sentences. Also, "in every continent" or "on every continent"?
 * ✅ Had a bash at rephrasing. J Milburn (talk) 10:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In Taxonomy, "S. crinita was synonymous with S. scutellata" - I'm a little confused on where S. crinita comes from. Are there any origin details on who (or when) this was discovered/described? The previous paragraph lists some other names with their describers, is this the same sort of thing?
 * Yeah- I note there are actually numerous synonyms. I'll leave this to Sasata, as that was his addition. J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a bit more detail about who originally described S. critina. There are a few more historical synonyms for S. scutellata, but I didn't want to spend too much space on obscure taxonomy. This is an area that could be expanded if someone tries to improve the article to FA level. Sasata (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In Edibility, "it is too small to be of any culinary use.[6]" - The source says "Edibility: Unknown, but much too puny to be of importance." - sounds more informally dismissive than the certainty in "too small to be of any culinary use". Lots of "small" ingredients are used for cooking.
 * ✅ Valid point. I've rephrased, and attributed the quote. J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In Distribution, "S. scutellata appeared roughly in the middle of the fungal succession" - is this a normal description in mycology? As a layman, I'm left wondering about the degree that "middle" is referring to. Middle out of like 10 species? or 100 species? or is it referring to a timeframe, like middle of 1 year or 100 year timeframe?
 * Definitely another one for Sasata. J Milburn (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked the original source, and have now included a timeframe for "middle" (years 2-4 of the 6 year study). Sasata (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In References: "Arora D. (1986). Mushrooms Demystified : a Comprehensive Guide to the Fleshy Fungi. Berkeley, California: Ten Speed Press. pp. 839–40." - I don't see the relevance of page 840, should in not be 838 to 839?
 * ✅ I thought I was referencing some of the "similar species" to that page, but I can't see it now... I'll make the change. J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a GA requirement, but would one of those nifty Mycomorphbox be appropriate here?
 * ❌ I'd say no- they're mostly geared towards your standard mushroom, rather than Sac Fungi. We could add one if you like, but it would be pretty spartan. J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Scholarly research, well-written. I'm placing this on hold as we consider some questions above. --maclean (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Conclusion


 * Thanks for joining the 3 for 1 reviewing challenge! Sasata (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)