Talk:Geopyxis carbonaria

Geopyxis carbonaria has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 27, 2015. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Geopyxis carbonaria appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 February 2009, and was viewed approximately 809 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that several species in the mushroom order Pezizales, such as Geopyxis carbonaria (pictured), Peziza violacea, Peziza praetervisa, and Rhizina undulata, grow on burned-over ground?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/February.

Wikipedia

Notes[edit]

references to find & add:

TURNAU, K. (1984) Investigation on Post-fire Discomycetes: Geopyxis rehmii sp. nov. et G. carbonaria. - Nova Hedwigia 40: 157-170.

Sasata (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Geopyxis carbonaria/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 20:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The fungus has a temperate North Hemisphere distribution." I think Northern Hemisphere is more typical, but how about something like "The fungus is distributed throughout many temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere."

Sure, changed. Sasata (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The prose in the taxonomy section is a little choppy- not bad, but perhaps you could try to smooth it out a little (also, you link "taxonomic" twice)

Copyedited this section. Sasata (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I trust this is something you'll be in a better position to know than me- does "trama" actually refer to the flesh of this species, or is the term specific to basidiocarps? Our article on trama seems to suggest the latter

That is correct, trama refers to the tramal plates (i.e. gills). Someday I (or someone) need to move trama (mycology) to context and make the article less basidiomycete-centric. Sasata (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"apothecium" is undefined jargon

Replaced with fruitbody. Sasata (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"which grows in similar habitats" Similar to what? The habitats you were just discussing of the habitats of Geopyxis carbonaria?

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is "a moderate pathogen"?

Hopefully it's clear now. Sasata (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The formation of a rudimentary Hartig net, characteristic of mycorrhizal fungi, suggesting that it might be capable of forming mutualistic relationships under the right conditions." This sentence doesn't quite work- you're missing a word or two

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"up to 700–100 fruitbodies" I assume this is a typo?

Yes, fixed. Sasata (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing a location on your Evenson source

Added. Sasata (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images all seem appropriate. Shame we don't have an article/category for the burnt ground fungi. The lead seems a little short, but for such a simple species, that's probably not surprising. I couldn't actually find it in my better field guides (I didn't bother checking the poor ones!) so I'm guessing that it's pretty unusual in the UK; you don't specifically mention the UK in the article, so that's not an issue. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find much detailed distribution info, so the article reflects that. I fattened the lead a bit for good measure. We will soon have both an article and category for post-fire fungi! Thanks for reviewing, Sasata (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the changes and have no further issues, so I'm going to go ahead and promote. Nice work, as ever. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Geopyxis carbonaria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130302235323/http://www.plantlife.org.uk/uploads/documents/recommended-english-names-for-fungi.pdf to http://www.plantlife.org.uk/uploads/documents/recommended-english-names-for-fungi.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]