Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) 17:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Will review, comments to follow within the next few days. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, did the review. The article looks great, only a few minor comments below. I made some copyedits as I went through, hopefully they're not troubling. I know next to nothing about mycology though, so I can't say much about the technical end of things, unfortunately. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• "Described as new to science in 1971" Is this the right way of saying it? Sounds odd to me for some reason... could be Ok though.

• It's used in the literature; a Google Scholar search confirms this. Sasata (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "punctuated with small black scales known as scabers." Should this be italicized?

• According to this, it should be (although I admit I apply this recommendation inconsistently). Sasata (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "punctuated with small black scales known as scabers. Known only from the Pacific Northwest region" Some repetition of "known" here.

• Changed the second one to "Found only in". Sasata (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Description

• "Several chemical tests can be used to help identify the mushroom: a drop of dilute (3–10%) potassium hydroxide (KOH) solution will turn the tubes pale red, nitric acid (HNO3) turns the tubes an orange-yellow color, and a solution of Iron(II) sulfate (FeSO4) causes the flesh to turn pale grey." "Turn" is used three times here, is there a good way around that?

• Reworded and removed two turns. Sasata (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edibility

• "One source advises caution when selecting this species for the table" I'd consider naming the source here.

• I changed source to "field guide", but don't think it's necessary to name the authors or the book (those interested can look at the citation); "advising caution" is not out of the ordinary for mushroom books, which usually are very circumspect when making edibility recommendations. Sasata (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similar species

• There's some repetition of "association" in this subsection.

• Reworded a couple. Sasata (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Habitat and distribution

• "Known only from North America" Similar to a comment above, this might be fine, but I'd have said "Found only...".

• Yeah, I guess this could be misinterpreted as "only people from N.A. know about it"; changed to "Known to occur only in". Sasata (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "it is commonly found from central California to southern Oregon,[7] but has also been reported in Washington and British Columbia (Canada)." Might want to note "further north" here, for people who aren't familiar with California vs Washington. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Good idea, done. Thanks for undertaking this GA review, I appreciate it! Sasata (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. I'm satisfied with the fixes and explanations, so I'll list this as a GA now. Good work! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]