# Talk:Amanita ravenelii

This section really leaves to be desired. I tried to make the prose more legible,but that is a challenge I can't quite figure out what half the described characters mean. Not to mention I'm not sure describing the features of the section in such details is really pertinent. This content probably best belongs to an infrageneric taxon page or possibly to a page such as Taxonomy of Amanita, though List of Amanita species is a potential target too. Also, the section ought to mention on or two species considered close relatives to A. ravenelii. Circéus (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's equally confusing as written in Singer 1986. I removed it. Someday I'll work on the main Amanita article (or one of the other two you suggested) and overhaul all the species pages (or maybe someone else who actually knows this stuff will do it first...) Sasata (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
As it is, I don't really think there's a need to add that info in species articles in general (unless it's relevant to explain changes in taxonomy). Circéus (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Amanita ravenelii/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I will review shortly. Just saving as per the new instructions... Feels like ages since I've reviewed one of yours- everyone else beats me there!
I was gonna use the template, but I don't think I need it...

"it grows solitary" Odd phrase- I normally use "solitarily"
Ok. Sasata (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
"somewhat truncated to attenuated." Link?
Glossed. Sasata (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't really make sense to describe the edibility as "unknown or inedible"- if it's unknown it's unknown, and if it's known to be inedible it's not unknown. I'd go with inedible- no source has explicitly called it unknown that you have cited.
Actually, the source I have cited for unknown edibility (Bessette et al., 2007) calls the edibility unknown. Some sources like to "play it safe" and define the edibility all questionable or little-known mushrooms "unsafe" or "not recommended" or "possibly poisonous" when in reality, the edibility is better described as "unknown". Here I present all options that I've found in the literature and the reader can make their own choice. Sasata (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I certainly appreciate that- it does raise the question of the category, though. Placing the page in the inedible category suggests a degree of certainty. I'm not gonna stall the promotion on that point, but it's something to consider. J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
"does not have the pale yellow to brownish-orange, large conical warts," That doesn't read that well- something up with the commas?
Correct; 1st comma removed. Sasata (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Why do you spell out "Amanita" in some specific names, but not others?
Because it is poor form to start sentences (& paragraphs, & sections) with abbreviations. I have reworded so to maintain the abbreviations for consistency. Sasata (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
"It has also been reported growing north of Baja California.[12]" North of Baja California would be California, surely? Or do you mean " in the north of..."? If so, perhaps clarify it's in Mexico?
fixed to "northern", and specified Mexico. Sasata (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
No word on which trees it likes beyond "mixed woodland"?
Not specifically for this species, but I added a sentence about section Lepidella in general. Sasata (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It's preferred growing style (solitary etc) is not actually mentioned in the article body, but is in the lead.
Rectified & reffed. Sasata (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Not the most thrilling of mushrooms (although it does look pretty cool!) but a fine little article, no doubt about that. Sources and illustrations are great- I'd be more than happy to promote once these little niggles are looked into. J Milburn (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and the excellent suggestions JM, the article has definitely improved. Sasata (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Promoted, thanks for the speedy reply. J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

The lead does not summarise all major aspects of the article.
The first couple of paragraphs in the "Description" section are missing citations.
There is no information on its conservation status.
Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)


### Amanita ravenelii