Talk:Lycoperdon perlatum

Image change

On July 20, 2006, Halved sandwich replaced the existing image in this edit: [1]

I'm the photographer of the original image, so I'm obviously biased as to which suits the article and the caption better, so I thought I should point it out here, and let others decide if they feel this is a change for the better or not. Here are the two images:

• 
• 

Some things that I'll point out as features of the images. The caption calls out the pinheads (small mushrooms that are just forming). Look at them closely in both images. Also, look at the amount of disfigurement and damage to any part of the mushrooms. Further, notice how complete a view of any one mushroom you get in both. -Harmil 20:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 13:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

On an initial reading of this article, I see a good, well-written species account which is mostly hard to fault. There a couple of minor things I noticed and others may occur to me later as I study the article further:

• I think the distribution of this species is wider than is mentioned in the article in that it occurs across Europe.

• I've expanded the distribution section a bit, including mention of its occurrence in Europe. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• The Mycological Characteristics box on the right is ambiguous in that it states that the species is both edible and inedible. Would it be possible to clarify that this depends on the age of the fungus.

• This is not possible to do in the mycomorphbox (technical limitations), but it's mentioned in the lead, and further discussed in the edibility section, so I think we're covered here. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

• In the lead section, the first half refers to the fungus in the singular and then this changes to the plural with the use of the phrase - "When mature they become brown...". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

• Fixed. Thanks for your review, and let me know if there's other issues you find. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Good

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: Satisfactory

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Yes

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced and sources appear to be reliable.

   C. No original research: None observed

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Subject is covered well.

   B. Focused: Yes

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias: Yes

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc: Expanded in September 2011 since when it has been stable.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: Images are appropriately licensed

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Images are suitable and help illustrate the text. No caption required for main image as the fungus' name is immediately above.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass

Edit request

In the section “Chemistry,” cinnamic acid is called a phenolic compound. It does not belong to that class. It is true that the reference cited is entitled “Phenolic acids determination by…” but cinnamic acid seems simply to be a compound incidentally caught up by their method. Indeed, their abstract specifically says, “A related non-phenolic compound, cinnamic acid, was also detected in some samples…” Since the word “compound” is not necessary, I urge that the sentence be changed to “A 2009 study found L. perlatum puffballs to contain cinnamic acid at a concentration of about 14 milligrams per kilogram of mushroom.[57]” Walter Turner 91.54.101.217 (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for the suggestion! — soupvector (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Taxonomy

How is it that the text says "The species was first described in the scientific literature in 1796 by mycologist Christiaan Hendrik Persoon" but the very next sentence says a synonym was "described by August Batsch in 1783"? Jariola (talk) 09:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)