 | Bisporella citrina 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. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 24, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that yellow fairy cups (pictured) are one of the most common small discos? | |||||||||
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Bisporella citrina/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 16:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Review to follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- "as yellow fairy cups or lemon disco" Weird plural/singular issue
- The first paragraph of the taxonomy section is very hard to follow- it feels very out-of-order.
- "have one cross-wall and oils drops at either end." oils? Also, they have a cross-wall at either end?
- "forms blue-green cups that stains wood bluish-green." stain, surely?
- "Bisporella sulfurina has a similar coloration" To Bisporella citrina, or to Lachnellula arida?
- Inconsistency with regards to common names in quote marks- I'd avoid it outside of the taxonomy section.
- "(especially deciduous trees), especially beech." especially especially
A look at the sources/images and another look through the text will follow, but I've got to dash now. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- ""Recommended English Names for Fungi in the UK-Revised". Scottish Fungi." This is a reference to a Google Groups page- not ideal. Here is a PDF with some citation info hosted by Plantlife, a moderately well-known British conservation group which gives the same info.
Other than that, the article looks strong- the only real difficulty is the awkward first paragraph of the taxonomy section. Stability, images and sources (bar my point above) are all fine. J Milburn (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for reviewing another fungus article, JM. I fixed all of your concerns above, and had a whack at clarifying the taxonomy section. The taxonomy of this species was quite confusing to me too, and what's shown in the article is only a very brief summary of the many pages Korf spends discussing this in his 1974 paper. I hope it makes sense now. Sasata (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pain, but the taxonomy section is still not-so-clear. Perhaps something like this-
The species was described from Europe by German naturalist August Batsch as Peziza citrina in 1789.[1] Elias Fries sanctioned this name in the second volume of his Systema Mycologicum (1821),[2] and Jean Louis Émile Boudier transferred the species to Calycella in 1885.[3] However, in 1846, Fries also sanctioned the name Helotium citrinium,[4] based on Johann Hedwig's 1789[5] Octospora citrina. For many years, the species was widely known by this name.[6] The generic name Helotium, however, competes with a basidiomycete genus of the same name, which has priority because it was sanctioned by Fries in 1832, several years before he transferred Hedwig's Octospora to that name. Accordingly, Richard Korf in 1974 formally transferred the species [which name does this refer to? Both?] to Bisporella, choosing that generic name over Calycella because it was published in 1884 [by whom? Why hasn't this been mentioned before now?],[7] one year earlier than Boudier's Calycella, and thus had priority.[6] Calycella has since been folded into Bisporella.[8]
The bold text needs fact-checking- I'm make assumptions which may not be accurate. The bold text in [brackets] alludes to information which would be useful to have added to the prose. If you dislike the way I'm rearranging this, please don't feel obliged to take it on, but it doesn't come across as clearly as it could currently, I feel. J Milburn (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've made a few changes/additions based on what you indicated was confusing above. Some points:
- Fries's 1846 publication was not a sanctioning work, so his Helotium citrinum has no special precedence over other names
- Korf determined that Helotium couldn't be used as the genus name for this species, as it had been used before (as a basidio, not asco genus), and that earlier name was sanctioned (not sure if I've gotten that point across clearly)
- the generic name Calycella has been mentioned in the second sentence of the paragraph.
I'm going to drop a note to Circeus, because he (unlike me) actually has expertise in taxonomy/nomenclature and can let us know if I've totally messed this up :) Sasata (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- ... and his reply. Sasata (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, spent a few days away to achieve strategic distance from the text, and attempted to rewrite the paragraph more logically. Any better? Sasata (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, it reads a lot better now. It's complicated, but I think that's inevitable. I'm happy to promote. J Milburn (talk) 09:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Batsch 1789was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Fries 1821was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Boudier 1885was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Fries 1846was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Hedwig 1789was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b Cite error: The named reference
Korf 1974was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Saccardo 1884was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Kirk 2008was invoked but never defined (see the help page).