Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Entoloma sinuatum/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Laser brain 16:55, 8 February 2011 [1].

---

Entoloma sinuatum

Entoloma sinuatum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Entoloma sinuatum/archive1

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it is le grand empoisonneur de la Côte-d'Or. The three scientific names of this fungus I found creepy...and we don't know what its poisonous constituent is. I'm glad to have buffed it up to FA (or just about FA) standard and so have at it. (note to delegates, the other article I am involved in at FAC is a co-nom...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• "initially having been described as Agaricus lividus by French naturalist Jean Baptiste Bulliard in 1788"—if that was actually Pluteus cervinus, then E. sinuatum wasn't described in 1788, was it? Ucucha 11:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I reworded it, as Bulliard thought he'd described something (though later recognised as an error). Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Taking a read. This is the third mushroom on FAC right now :)

• Perhaps mention in the caption of the Bulliard image that it's not actually this species?

good point. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Why the single quotes on 'lead-coloured'?

That and the two words in the previous sentence are all direct translations, so I normally use quotes to highlight translation of foreign words. Do you mean why are they there at all or why are they not double quotes? If the latter I am very happy to just change them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The latter. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• "center" should be "centre", if you're following British English

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• "St Georges'" Why apostrophe after the s?

typo of course...now fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• "It may be confused with" Sounds like you're referring to Tricholoma columbetta

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Most members of the genus are saprotrophic,[35] although this species has been recorded as forming an ectomycorrhizal relationship with willow (Salix).[36]" So it's a saprotroph which can be ectomycorrhizal? Or is it always ectomycorrhizal?

Thing is, we don't know. There is some evidence of ectomycorrhizality, that is all I can say. I am presuming the other is that it is deemed otherwise saprotrophic but have not seen that fact ascribed to E. sinuatum specifically, just applied to the genus (hence just sticking to sources). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• "In Geneva alone, 70 people required hospital treatment in 1983;[38] the fungus accounted for 33 of 145 cases of mushroom poisoning in a five-year period at a single hospital in Parma.[39]" Perhaps say "for example"? It seems strange to refer to these two (rather obscure) statistics but nothing else

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps a little more on fatalities? It may just be the boy in me, but, surely, there's more to be said?

no, it's a good point as there has been some discussion over whether anyone's died from it. I'll try to dig up some details. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Update - this is proving hard...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• "colicky"?

best fit for colicky is wikt:colic - really need to fix up all wp pages on colic sometime :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• "Intravenous" link?

linked to Intravenous therapy Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• (I added a link to the portal, hope you don't mind)

that's ok :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps separate the refs from the notes?

It makes sense to me to have the books as a level 3 heading under the level 2 references as they are intimately linked - the pagenumber refs of the books refer to the books. This is a style issue that comes up from time to time Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that's fine, what I mean is separate the likes of "Initially presumed to be Entoloma prunuloides but later found to be different to that taxon." from the references, perhaps use Template:Note. J Milburn (talk) 13:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh hell yeah! that's just what I was musing on. I'll get to it. done now Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

A great looking article for an important and interesting species, definitely worthy of an article of this quality. Some really interesting stuff in the article. J Milburn (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs; 1 dead external link- this. --PresN 22:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

fixed deadlink Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources comments: A couple of tiny queries:-

• Ref 9: What language?
• Likewise ref 19?

Otherwise sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. As English is the default language I suppose you're not obliged to dentify these as English sources, though the foreign titles/publishers do suggest otherwise. All clear now, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support – Read through the whole article and it looks nice. The only thing I would recommend is for a couple of the PDF links to be indicated as such (references 14 and 30; the other two PDFs includde this already). Otherwise, I don't have any complaints. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

fixed/done Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• "Quélet himself, who was poisoned by the fungus, called it the millers purge, akin to another common name of false miller."—did the poor Frenchman write in misspelled English?

d'oh! added apostrophe Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Shouldn't Agaricus lividus be removed from the synonyms list and the category changed to "Species described in 1801"?

""removed technically invalid name and changed cat. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• "The case for a broadly-defined Entoloma has strengthened with the genus forming a well-defined group within the Entolomataceae if it incorporates several other genera."—can't make much of this. The previous paragraph talks about whether Entoloma is to be recognized at all, and now you suddenly mention the case for a "boradly defined" Entoloma. Also, doesn't "forming a well-defined group within the Entolomataceae if it incorporates several other genera" simply mean that it does not form a well-defined group? You also discuss this same phylogenetic analysis twice in different paragraphs.

Ucucha 04:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah this is tricky and raises the issue of how detailed one needs to discuss these on species-level pages - it is clearer on the genus page Entoloma. Essentially there were two competing genus names, Entoloma and Rhodophyllus for much of the 20th century, but the former won out through popularity. Further, Entoloma swallowed up some small genera with cladistic analysis subsequently. I think the second bit is unhelpful here maybe and artificially conflates things, and have hence removed it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Brief comments: why is "gray pinkgill" the only common name included in the article but not the lead (and does it use the American spelling?); "later found to be different to that taxon" and "The French naturalist Jean Baptiste Bulliard named Agaricus lividus in 1788, illustrated, although without an accompanying description" are a bit awkwardly worded; "St Georges'" or "St George's" mushroom? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've not seen that name as often as the others, hence felt it didn't warrant a guernsey in the lead (just teh commoner ones). I need to double check on where the name came from (America I think), which raises an interesting question if the article is using British spelling to we Brit-ify an American vernacular name....changedf next to "but later found to be distinct from that taxon"; I fixed apostrophe in St Georges'Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments. This looks very good.

• I corrected an x to a proper multiplication sign (button under edit-box). There's a hyphen after an -ly adverb. The "British Isles" do include Ireland without saying, don't they?

removed stray-hyphen. yes. to be sure to be sure...:) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Eastwards in Turkey, it has been recorded in the Black Sea region,[30] and Adıyaman Province in the south-central parts of the country.[31] The mushroom has also been recorded from Iran[32] and from northern Yunnan in China.[33]" Can't it be one integrated list to avoid the "also"? "From" should be "in"? Bit confused about "eastwards" then "south-central". "In Turkey it has been recorded in the Black Sea region[30] and Adıyaman Province in the south-central parts of the country,[31] as well as Iran[32] and from northern Yunnan in China.[33]" What is that funny character in AdXyaman province?

The "eastwards" I wrote to mean "east of Europe", for the next locations are all in Asia, to give it some context with the previous, however I have reworded into one sentence now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

NB: Why it's a dotless I of course.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• "but they may also occur" -> "and may occur"

tweaked to "but they may spread to.." as it is these areas near to their native forest habitat. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• "The humus-rich substrate was also high in the element." Possibly "Mercury was also found in high levels in the humus-rich substrate."?

changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Of the roughly 40 μg of arsenic present per gram of fresh mushroom tissue". (Unless some fine nuance needs to be conveyed here ...).

To me, the "present" carries a connotation that the arsenic is not usually there but a contaminant, so on reading it over a few times, my preference is to leave it in... Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• "but this species has a ring on the stipe, pink gills that become chocolate-brown in maturity, and a dark brown spore print"—should brown be hyphenated both times?

you reckon? "dark-brown" comes across as weird to me...if we are pushing for consistency, I'd be more inclined to remove the hyphen from chocolate brown...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• That 1/2 character is SO much better than those disruptive ugly ducklings in the just-promoted Walden–Wallkill_Rail_Trail.

Erm...huh? You've lost me... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Gray pinkgill"—US spelling ok, clashing with "grey" elsewhere? Unsure. Tony (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Aah, bugger the Americans, it ain't an Official Name as per bird names, so I think "grey" is ok...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments Another very interesting article on a subject about which I know little, yet I found the article to be quite readable (though I needed to use the supplied links to understand what was meant by some terms, which of course is how it is supposed to work -- the links are very helpful). Just a few comments...

* This may be a difference between British and American English that I've not encountered before, but I wondered about "...countering Kummer's erection of Entoloma to genus level." I would have thought "elevation" or "promotion" would have been more applicable. To me, "erection" tends to imply raising in the specific context of construction, as in erecting a building.

yeah, on reading it, I think "elevation" is better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

* In the very next sentence, the em-dash between "author" and "Henri" doesn't seem quite right somehow. You describe those following either author. The part after the em-dash could be a sentence by itself, but I may be misunderstanding the intent here.

yeah, I've semicoloned it as they are two closely connected sentences. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

* As it is a translated word, would it make sense to put "wavy" in either single or double quotes, in the phrase "...is derived from the Latin for wavy"?

yes. done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

* "When looked at from underneath" might be better as "When viewed from underneath" or "When viewed from beneath". Mainly it's the "looked at" that is slightly awkward to me

changed. an improvement. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

* In "recorded from Austria, France and Holland" -- "recorded in", perhaps? That may be a matter of preference, and the meaning is still clear.

I like to mix it up a little, as I was writing rather alot of "in"s...and "from" sounds slightly better to my ears. Or "found in.." sounds ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

True, it's good to mix things up; I guess I was just looking at the sentence's internal structure, but this is fine. Omnedon (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

* I'm just curious -- what is meant by saying that E. albidum is "poorly known"?

Many (if not most) mushroom species are poorly known - with little known of how they grow, or their distribution, how/whether they are distinct from other species or whther they are composed of several similar-looking species. They are also hard to preserve. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

* "The fruit bodies of E. sinuatum usually grow solitarily or in groups, although they have been found forming fairy rings." It seems to me that a fairy ring would be a group, and so the "although" phrase separates "fairy ring" from "group" unnecessarily; but there may be something I don't understand here. I would have thought that "solitarily" and "in groups" would have covered all possibilities between them.

A fairy ring is a very specific and notable group formation. I think changing "although" to "and" makes it less contrastive and hence more logical (?)

Yes, I like the rewording. I've seen fairy rings in the meadow here. Omnedon (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

* This may be a style issue I haven't run into; but should "30 min" be spelled out to "30 minutes", or is this abbreviation standard practice? I see that "2 hours" is spelled out.

good catch. my bad. spelt out now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

* Can this species be cultivated? Does it have, or has it had, any applications?

not as far as we know, and who knows - no-one has yet figured out what the active toxins are yet... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I wondered if this could be addressed, but if it's unknown then it can't really. :-) Omnedon (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Support Overall very well-done. Omnedon (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

thx :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments.

• "It is the largest and type species of the genus": is this construction something you would see in the literature? It sounds a little odd to a layman; would it be better to say something like "It is the largest mushroom in the genus of pink-spored fungi known as Entoloma", and is the Entoloma type species"?

agreed and split to avoid unsual juxtaposition. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• "Bulliard named Agaricus lividus in 1788": Agaricus lividus doesn't appear in the synonyms on the right; should it? If not, I'm not sure why it's mentioned.

  I see from a comment above that it was in the synonym list and has been removed but I have to say I don't follow. Maybe I'm being slow, but can you explain what the sequence is here? Is it the case that Bulliard meant to describe E. sinuatum but because his picture was incorrect the name doesn't get to be on the synonyms? If so, how do we know that Bulliard really did mean to describe E. sinuatum?

I think the story is that after Bulliard named Agaricus lividus, people thought his description applied to Entoloma sinuatum. Only later was it discovered that Bulliard had actually described Pluteus cervinus. Therefore, the name Agaricus lividus is a synonym of Pluteus cervinus, and not of Entoloma sinuatum. Ucucha 23:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There is some writing under the illustration which indicates it is this species (but it is not an official latin Description as such). The name was also cosidered valid and is the antecedent to the name Entoloma lividum which was in use for decades (and but for a 11-1 vote would have been the official name today). Hence it has no official status yet is an integral part of the discovery and classification of the fungus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think I follow. I don't think the article currently tells me that, unless to an expert the description as you have it implies that. For example, I'd be inclined to say something like "The French naturalist Jean Baptiste Bulliard intended to illustrate E. sinuatum in his 1788 Champignon de la France, though his illustration was subsequently found to be of Pluteus cervinus." (I assume that "not formally describing it" means he did not list the identifying characteristics which would allow another mycologist to be sure of the identification of another specimen.) Then at the end of the paragraph wouldn't it be useful to expand what you say there to the effect of what you just said above? Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have rejigged it so that commentary on the illustration is in the one point. It is less chronological now but (hopefully) more logical. You are right about a description, which is a diagnosis of distinguishing features written in Latin, whereas Bulliard just has some notes in French under the drawings. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That helps, but I think it's still too compressed for someone who doesn't already know the facts. The last sentence still confuses me: why was the suggestion to conserve E. lividum rejected because Bulliard's name was invalid, when Bulliard's name was Agaricus lividus not Entoloma lividum? Was Quélet's formal description somehow dependent on Bulliard, whereas Kummer's wasn't? Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The species epithet remains depending on the original if subsequent authors come and reclassify in a different genus. Hence Quelet had followed Bulliard and Kummer followed Persoon...and subsequent writers chose between the two. Late here. I need to sleep now and think on it. I do see where you're coming from.. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This Q&A is making me feel like I took a stupid pill. If you'll bear with me, I am still not clear about this. You say Quélet followed Bulliard and Kummer followed Persoon. I think your comment about the species epithet remaining means that in a binomial name, reclassification to another genus only affects the first part of the binomial. But if Quélet followed Bulliard, it should have been E. lividus, not E. lividum, in that case unless Entoloma is neuter in Latin? I think that must be it. Similarly when Kummer switched to Entoloma from Agaricus he also had to change to neuter: sinuatus to sinuatum. So line 1 has Bulliard placing it in Agaricus; he's followed by Kummer who moves it to Entoloma; line 2 has Persoon placing it in Agaricus also, with a different specific epithet (presumably being unaware of Bulliard's work) and Quélet moves it to Entoloma. If Bulliard had described it fully and also depicted the right mushroom it would now be called Entoloma lividum. Is that right? Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Entoloma is neuter in Greek (not Latin in this case), yes. As far as I can see, your post here is right. Ucucha 02:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. OK, one more question, then I think I can try to suggest a clarification. The sentence "Despite this, it was listed as E. lividum in most books for many years" doesn't quite make sense to me: the "despite" presumably refers to the antedating -- that is, Kummer had priority, so one would have expected his name to become established. But if Kummer and Quélet are following Persoon and Bulliard respectively, doesn't Quélet inherit priority from Bulliard's priority? Or was Bulliard's mistaken illustration and informal description already thought at that time to invalidate his priority? Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This gets a bit further into the quirks of botanical nomenclature than I'm comfortable with, but as I understand article 11.4 of the Vienna Code (the current code of botanical nomenclature), priority does indeed carry over from genus to genus. However, because the original description of Agaricus lividus did not refer to what we now know as Entoloma sinuatum, Quélet's description was held to be of a new species (according to Redeuilh 1999), which therefore has its own priority. That is why a proposal was needed to conserve the name. I've made a few tweaks to the text to reflect what I read in Redeuilh (1999). Ucucha 03:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those changes do help; they get rid of the "Despite", which was bothering me, and clarify a couple of other things too. I see you also replied at the talk page; I'll add a comment there. Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why is "the miller's purge" in italics?

Using italics in the case of a word-as-word in the MOS under italics. I've done this in other articles - I suppose one could argue either way...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

OK -- I've only seen quotes used that way, so I was wondering if something else was meant, but that's fine. Mike Christie (talk – library) 02:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk – library) 22:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.