Talk:Amanita ocreata

message: Dear Peter,
I'm fond of the fact that WP isn't a book or I'd be wasting alot of paper. Given this little toadstool is from your neck of the woods,  are you able to stick in any other material that refers specifically to A. ocreata alone? e.g. toxicity relative to others, ref for description, occurrence (north/south limits?) etc. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi – sorry I haven't been very active lately. I'll have a look at some references on the article. I'm pretty sure, like other California "oak amanitas" that the north/south limit is from southern Oregon to northern Baja California, basically, the California Floristic Province. I have mixed feelings on the section on toxicity – its well researched and written, but superfluous. What I mean is, the specifics about its toxicity are true of all amanitin- and phalloidin-containing Amanita rather than being specific to A. ocreata. I think that most of the information on toxicity should be moved to another article. In fact, I think that information on amanitin poisoning on Wikipedia is kind of a mess right now – split up among several articles in a not particularly logical way. Peter G Werner 16:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: North-south limits/Toxicity

message: This is a well-cited article, and overall looks good. However, I already see problems when compared even minimally to QA Amanita phalloides:
* Please expand the intro of the article, per WP:LEAD. There is no way the six sentences at the top of this article summarize everything in this article (and if they do, the article is not broad in coverage).
::(ok..doing)
* There is one section, Distribution and habitat, which is only two sentences long. Surely more can be said about its distribution and habitat than two sentences (one sentence on distribution, one on habitat?). There is no need for a whole section containing only two sentences. A range map would also be nice here, if you can't say a whole lot more about the range.
::(was trying to keep to book refs, but there is some stuff on the web. Have requested a journal article which may help with this)
* "Along with its geographical namesakes, it is one of the most poisonous of all known toadstools and is responsible for a number of poisonings in California." Makes it sound as if its geographical namesakes are also poisonous. What are its geographical namesakes?
::(clarified this - meant all spp. called destroying angels)
* A citation is needed for "The cap is initially hemispherical, before becoming more convex and flattening; reaching up to 12 cm (5 in) in diameter." (It's not in the source cited for that paragraph). (got proper ref)
* "Not only humans have been poisoned;" grammar. (removed)
* More tomorrow, as I begin a deeper review of this article. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is already looking better, Cas. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, great. Thanks Cas. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Frustrated as no distribution bits really give an idea of how far inland the thing grows (just the north/south limits and mention of Sierra Nevada foothills), but I'll keep looking. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't kill yourself over this, Cas; I'm very happy with how the article has shaped up; it has improved so much. I was just looking for decent-sized sections, and you've definitely accomplished that. I can't do a full review tonight, because of the surgery, but I will give this a thorough going-over tomorrow. Thanks so much for responding so quickly to my concerns. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I can live with either....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: GAC comments