Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rhodotus/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 SandyGeorgia 23:54, 3 October 2009 [1].

Rhodotus

edit
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

In my biased opinion, I believe this article is the most thorough and up-to-date source of information on this mushroom genus/species that is available on the web or in print, and think it is ready to be vetted by the FAC crowd. Looking forward to hearing your suggestions for improvement. Sasata (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 16:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from J Milburn

My initial reactions are that this article is beautifully illustrated (I use the lead image as my sign-on icon on Windows), but perhaps a little on the short side for an FA. I'll have a read through and see what jumps out at me.

  • I don't like the idea of an FA with only a single lead paragraph, even if the article is quite short...
Now two paragraphs and expanded. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "North Africa" a place in the same way North America is? Would "northern Africa" not be better?
I think both are acceptable (see North Africa), but have changed it as I agree with your reasoning. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The type species of genus Rhodotus" It's the only species, so the "type species" mention seems a little odd.
This I've kept as is, as here I'm specifically referring to the historical designation of the type species. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kühner and Romagnesi" Who? Link? Explanation? Full names?
Random mycologists who wrote something about the subject once. GGirl asked about this too; I'm going to hold off putting redlinks until I'm sure they have enough info to warrant articles. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: thanks Casliber for linking Romagnesi (I spelled it wrong when I searched for the name... duh) and creating a stub for Kühner. Sasata (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Besson"- again.
As above. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pseudohiatuleae" No article? Surely it's notable- a redlink is not necessarily a bad thing.
Sure, I have enough info to start an article on this. Redlinked. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically, I think the fact you have the mycomorphbox opposite the image of the young specimen, sandwiching the text, means that the placement is not MOS compliant. Doesn't bother me personally, but...
Damn mmbox cramping my style again! Made changes so that not all the text (only about 1/3 now) is sandwiched. If I hear the voice of an FAC director booming from the heavens above to fix it even more, I will try. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nuclear large subunit" Sorry? Went way over my head.
Removed as excess detail. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "euagarics" Again.
Linked. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetition of the word "clade", and the second is linked rather than the first.
Both fixed. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One sentence paragraph at the end of taxonomy.
Have now expanded to a new subsection in taxonomy. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lentinula reticeps (Murr.) Murr." As he is known as "Murr.", do we not need to have a second period? Also, what's the deal with that authority? What's the difference between that and just "Murr."? Also, "(Peck.)"- why not just "Peck."?
GGirl asked about this too. Further investigation revealed that the 1986 Redhead paper I used as the source actually had the authority incorrect - it should be (Mont.) Murr. It was strangely satisfying to know I had found an error made by an experienced, widely-published mycological veteran :) Anyway, I think I've presented the synonymy and the authorities in that section in a more reader-friendly manner. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gelatinous" Link?
wikt'd. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The gills have an adnate attachment to the stem, that is, broadly attached to the stem slightly above the bottom of the gill, with most of the gill fused to the stem; the gills are thick, packed close to each other, with veins and color similar to, but paler than the cap." That sentence doesn't read well. Also, there should be a comma between "than" and "the".
Fixed and done. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in mycological jargon"?
Gone. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "µm" Linky?
Ok. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there no uses for this at all? No obscure chemicals? No witchdoctory medical stuff? The article feels a little incomplete without any discussion of uses. Is this species only really known for looking distinctive and the arguments about how to classify?
I've scraped my sources again. No "uses" nor bioactive compounds unfortunately, but I did expand the light requirements section, as I think this is what sets this species apart. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rhodotus palmatus is saprobic, and obtains nutrients from decomposing organic matter." Tautology?
Reworded. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "basswood (genus Tilia), (Acer)," Rephrase? Not clear what this means.
Removed instances of Latin genus names for the trees and just linked the common names. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by canopy." Should this be the canopy? Perhaps a canopy? It doesn't look right at the moment.
Reworded. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "spring to fall in the" I appreciate the article is in American English, but "fall" is not a word we, as Brits, are familiar with. Our article is entitled Autumn- is "Autumn" a term you use? It's a much prettier word :)
I did not know Brits didn't use "fall". Will use Autumn from now on. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Europe and Britain." Would we not count as Europe? "North America and Canada"?
Bring it up with Michael Jordan (not the bball player, the author of "Fungi of Britain and Europe"). Have reordered to put Britain in front of Europe—hopefully this will offend British sensibilities slightly less :) Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "West Germany" Again, western Germany? Germany? Or are you referring to it from when it was known as West Germany? Perhaps an update?
Good point. Now just Germany. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the area formerly known as the USSR," Ref? It looks odd without a ref on one of the entries.
Reffed. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has also been collected in New Zealand." Why separate? Is this a surprise?
No, a disjunct resulting from a prior add-on. Merged. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species gained legal protection in Hungary in 2005." Very interesting- more info?
As you wish. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 1993 National Environmental Status Report for the Baltic countries Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania report it as "extinct or probably extinct"." Just in those countries, I assume?
Reworded for clarity. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is possible to use a term regionally extinct, which is commonly used for such cases. It can be also written like this: ...it is considered by the Environmental Protection Ministries (a branch of government charged with implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity) to be regionally extinct reported as "extinct or probably extinct". --Snek01 (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After looking around a bit on the IUCN website, I agree with you. It appears "regionally extinct" is equivalent to "extinct on a regional Red List". Have added it to the sentence, thanks. Sasata (talk) 05:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "resurgence.[29][5]" Switch refs around so in order?
K. Sasata (talk)
  • "field – such" That the right sort of dash? I think you used a different one above?
Changed to emdash. Before Wikipedia, I didn't know the difference between a hyphen and the dashes. Now the "corseted aesthetic" implied by emdash usage is growing on me. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure the light requirements stuff needs to have a section of its own- I'd be much more interested in a separate section discussing rarity, extinction and protection.
I've added some info to this section, so hopefully now you will think it warrants its own section. "Rarity, extinction and protection" is covered in the new final paragraph of distribution. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cited text"- you obviously know academia better than me, but shouldn't that be a plural?
But there's only one text being cited? Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like that - will start using that format from now on. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Commons cat to link to?
Done. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've missed the New Zealand/Australasia/Oceana cat
Added. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all, I feel the article is lacking something- compared to other FAs, which have discussions of uses, this one seems to focus on the biology of it. I'd love to see an expansion on the details about rarity, extinction, protection and so on, and any further details about edibility (or the lack thereof) or any other uses would be a big plus. J Milburn (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your comments again, they have been very helpful and have motivated me to look for more info to add. Your comments about the article "lacking" are well-received; I see this as an opportunity to guage what sort of quality/information availability is required for a fungal taxon FA, and perhaps this subject is on the borderline. While digging deep in the Google search results (~page 30) I found this Chinese paper which looks tantilizingly like it might have some interesting info I could add. Will contact a Chinese-speaking colleague about a translation. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a couple more quick thoughts, mostly boring ref formatting issues-

  • Horse chestnut is a dab link
  • "the baltic countries" Caps?
  • "It was one of 35 species to gain legal protection in Hungary in 2005.[49]" Sorry to bring this up again, but what precisely does this entail? You're not allowed to pick it? Or what?
  • Shouldn't "Red list" be "Red List"? That's how our article on the subject capitalises it.
  • "it is considered "extinct or probably extinct"." By whom?
  • Perhaps the lighting requirements section should be a subsection of the habitat and distribution section? Seems it's mostly a discussion of where it fruits.
  • Can we have a link for the word "reitculations"?
  • "Rhodotus palmatus tends to fruit in cooler and moister weather" Perhaps refer to it as R. palmatus there?
  • Sorry to be a pain, but perhaps a few more links in the refs? If we have articles on any of the publishers, links would be useful.
  • "Vedett nagygombafajok Magyarorszagon. [Protected macrofungi in Hungary]" Is that a standard way to translate titles? I've not seen it before... Perhaps a note on the original language of the paper? There is a feature for that in our citation templates. There seems to be a bit of inconsistency about this in the refs.
  • Link hasn't formatted in ref 45. You need http:// before the www.
  • Ref 29, you don't need to mention MushroomExpert twice.
  • Ref 5- "van der Gaag H.". I work in a bookshop, and we would list him, as an author, as "Gaag, H____ van der". Of course, I'm not really familiar with your citation style.
  • Ref 31, "Rhodotus palmatus" seems like a more sensible page title than the current one.
  • Similar with ref 20- how about Rhodotus palmatus - Names Record" instead?
  • Ref 9, I take it there's no reference number? The ISBN of the journal world?
Not sure what you mean by "reference number", please clarify. Sasata (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
International Standard Serial Number, PubMed Unique Identifier, PubMed Central article number, Online Computer Library Center ID number or digital object identifier. I got these from Template:Cite journal. Is there no means of tracking it? J Milburn (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comprende. Have added the OCLC and ISSN. Sasata (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 47 could do with better formatting.

That'll do, that's mostly ultra-minor stuff anyway... J Milburn (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed most of these suggestions above (except for the one clarification required). Have moved the light requirement paragraph into the Habitat and Distribution section like you suggested, and made a new section called "Conservation status". I like the change, for one thing, it lines up the final picture to the section that talks about phenotypic variations in fruit body appearance, so it fits nicely. Thanks for the attention to detail. Sasata (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I spent a couple hours tonight in the library and managed to find a couple more sources to add. Check out the new section on antimicrobial activity (the activity is weak, but at least the info is there now), and the new sentence discussing wood preference, and position in fungal succession. Sasata (talk) 03:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC) ... and another synonym, and a 1908 paper reporting its ability to produce chlamydospores. Sasata (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also couldn't resist adding a couple more photos (they look so cool), but let me know if you think it's too much. Sasata (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The photos look great, the anti-microbial information really adds to the article, love the conservation status section (and thanks for clarifying what the protection entails). My only criticism of the discussion of wood preference is the repetition of the word "wood". Sorry to pick at this sentence yet again, but "It was one of 35 species to gain legal protection in Hungary in 2005, making it a fineable offense to pick them." I assume that means one of 35 fungal species? J Milburn (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to avoided repetitive "wood"; specified fungal species. Sasata (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Index Fungorum is published by CAB International, publishers of the "Dictionary of the Fungi", the "bible" of mycology, and the website is maintained and updated by professional mycologists. Mushroom Expert is published by respected author Michael Kuo; reviewers were ok with the use of this source in the last fungal taxon FAC. Sasata (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just to echo what Sasata said- Index Fungorum is almost like the OED of the fungi world, while MushroomObserver is a professional site well maintained by a published and respected mycologist. J Milburn (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
    • Its range should go in the heading paragraph, if not sentence. Check out the other animal & plant FAs.
I have reworked the lead so that the range information appears in the 2nd sentence. Other tweaks were made in passing. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the pictures are mature specimens, taken looking down on the cap so that the stem isn't seen; others show the species in a young stage of development where the cap hasn't opened up yet. I've made the caption for the taxobox image more descriptive so the reader knows exactly what they're looking at.
    • "It is sometimes seen "bleeding" a red- or orange-colored liquid" - is it know why it does this? Is this special to this mushroom? This feels like a gun mentioned on the first page of a novel never to be heard from again.
These droplets are probably the result of whatever pigment is in the caps leaching out into the moisture that accumulates on the stem... but that's just my opinion, not written anywhere else that I know of. However, I did find a tidbit of info about a similar secretory phenomenon occurring in laboratory culture and have added that. Is that sufficient to whet your appetite? Sasata (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Characteristics section is pretty dense to a lay person like me. Not sure if it needs tweaking or not.
I tweaked it anyways. Have divided both macro- and microscopic characteristic subsections into 3 bite-sized paragraphs, and massaged the text within. Does it read better? Sasata (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Edibility" - If it's not poisonous it's edible, right? Is there any mention of it being poisonous?
It's edible in the sense the cardboard is edible. "Edible" in the mycophagological sense means "commonly used as an edible species", although of course there can't really be a clear distinction as tastes vary. This species is uncommon enough to not have had its edibility extensively tested and documented. I'll check the sources again and if one of them specifically says "non-poisonous" I'll add that. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though not mentioned in the sources it wouldn't take a hard leap to think that once dutch elm has wiped out a large amount of elms and they have completely decayed this mushroom will begin to lose range again. There may be a ref saying that?
I looked again, but did not find evidence of anyone making this logical supposition in print. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. Sasata (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Could you maybe move some of the discussion on cap color to Characteristics as well? -Ravedave (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now alluded to the variability in fruit body characteristics depending on light. Thanks for the support. Sasata (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Description by Bulliard is not on the page 216, but on the plate 216 (and these plates are sorted irregularry), the certain link is http://www.archive.org/stream/herbierdelafranc193240bull#page/n48/mode/1up There is also a cross-section through the fungi. --Snek01 (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great link... have added it to the cite. Also added "plate" in the page parameter, but that makes it show as "p. plate 216"... if anyone knows how to make that look nice, do tell. Thanks Snek, Sasata (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I've changed the sentence as you have suggested. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and support (I'm sure all the below will be dealt with promptly. Nice article on a nice mushroom! Congrats.)

Molecular phylogenetics analysis has helped determine that Rhodotus is most closely related to genera in the Physalacriaceae.

Maybe link this sentence to the previous. The transition is a bit blunt. Maybe "More recently, molecular phylogenetics"
Sounds ok, changed. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A 1986 paper reported that the species Pleurotus pubescens, first described by American mycologist Charles Horton Peck in 1891,[10] was equivalent to, and thus synonymous with Rhodotus palmatus.

The species is not synonymous, its the name.
Never thought of it like that, but you're right. Have corrected the semantics (next one too). Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the same publication, another synonym is Lentinula reticeps, a species described by William Alphonso Murrill in 1915

Same problem.

ornamentation

Does this deserve a link?
There's no appropriate link, hopefully sometime in the future the spore article will be FA and explain this nicely. Until then I've added parenthetically what spore ornamentation refers to. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

core Euagarics clade

Could we have a plain English quick explanation?
Have now explicated what it means to be a member of this clade. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

convex

Link?
Wikt'd. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These short gills, called lamellulae, form from 2 to 4 groups of roughly equal length.

1)Can we remove 'from' to avoid 'form from', and because it's redundant? 2) Can we change 2 to 'two' etc.?
Ok. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stem is 1.5–3.0 cm (0.6–1.2 in) tall by 0.4–0.6 cm (0.16–0.24 in) thick

I have never seen before the construction "X is x cm tall by y cm thick". Maybe replace 'by' with 'and'.
Sure. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

iron salts

Link?
There's a link already in the sentence to lead to chemical tests in mushroom identification. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

have a roughly spherical shape, with dimensions of 6–7.2 by 5.6–6.5 µm

Seems to be more of an ellipsoidal shape then, rather than spherical.
Actually it's subglobose, the mycological term for almost round, but with the length/width parameter not quite ellipsoidal. I use "roughly spherical" to avoid using the word subglobose. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cheilocystidia

Link?
A link would lead to the cystidia article, which is already linked slightly before. Someday that article too will be much better written and I'll be able to link directly to a section in it. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the number of dead elms (resulting from Dutch elm disease)

I find the bracketed information interesting. Maybe integrate in prose.
Took it out of the parentheses. Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fineable

Do we need link?
In the interests of avoiding overlinking, I've unlinked it. Thanks for your comments and support! Sasata (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Rhodotus/archive1&oldid=1046369805"