Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ramaria botrytis/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose 10:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Ramaria botrytis[edit]

Ramaria botrytis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramaria botrytis is a widely distributed, common, edible coral fungus. I think the prose and research are up to the standards of other mushroom FAs. Looking forward to your comments, Sasata (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sasata. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images
  • I've fixed the description & source for the 1st image, thanks. Sasata (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images are good now. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN9: do you mean "Cambridge University Press"?
  • Be consistent in whether you include both authors in shortened citations
  • FN45: location?
  • Marr: check italicization. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All tweaked, thanks for checking (The Marr title italicization is correct, as the word Ramaria is to be unitalicized in the otherwise italicized title). Sasata (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from J Milburn

Some thoughts- feel free not to go ahead with suggestions you don't think are worthwhile.

  • "The color of the branches is initially whitish but age to buff or tan" Same thing I mentioned the other day. "The branches are initially..." is probably better?
  • "It was given its current name in 1918 by Adalbert Ricken." Could we perhaps have more detail here? Was he the one who split Ramaria from Clavaria?
  • I checked Ricken's publication, but didn't get any sense of why he moved it to Ramaria. I did, however, add that it was a 1933 Donk publication that made this the type species of the genus. Sasata (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as is A. A. Pearson's variety Clavaria botrytis var. alba." Potentially confusing; perhaps list this with the other varieties, but note that it is no longer recognised?
  • As it's a word as a word, I think βότρυς should be italicised. An anglicisation may also be useful.
  • MOS:Ety tells us that words in foreign script should not be italicized; I'm not sure if the word as word usage overrides this, but I get the feeling it isn't necessary here. I added an (italicized!) anglicization. Sasata (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "terrestrial species" Maybe a silly question, but as opposed to what?
  • Removed word, as I think it's evident from context that the genus is terrestrial.
  • "R. botrytis include its large size, the orange, reddish, or purplish-colored branchlets, striate spores with dimensions averaging 13.8 by 4.7 µm, and a weak amyloid staining reaction of the stem tissue.[7] Ramaria rubripermanens" Feel free to ignore, but would it not make sense to spell out the first but not the latter?
  • "Ramaria lookalikes" - "Ramaria botrytis lookalikes"?
  • Perhaps, but I'm implying that the lookalikes shown are all in genus Ramaria (as opposed to some other coral fungus genus). Sasata (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An ectomycorrhizal species" Not keen on the half-linked word
  • "Ramaria botrytis is a "snowbank fungus", meaning it commonly fruits near the edges of melting snowbanks in the spring.[27]" Expand on this? What's the biology/significance of this?
  • I pondered adding more about this, but I think details are best left to the snowbank fungus article (which I'm planning to expand this year). Sasata (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two varieties are mentioned in the taxonomy section. One is described and its distribution is mentioned, but the other is not mentioned again.
  • Have now added a description & distribution for variety compactospora. Sasata (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "green peanuts, or pea hulls" Off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you what either of these are. Do we have any suitable links?
  • I glossed an explanation for green peanuts. The hull is the shell. What do you call it? (open to changing it to shells, husks, pods, or skin, if you think any of those would be more universally recognizable). Sasata (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd call them pods, but that may just be me, rather than a British English thing. J Milburn (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe edible and caution may be suitable for the mycomorphbox?
  • Didn't do this, because parameter "howedible=caution" produces an output of "not recommended", which isn't in line with what the sources give. Sasata (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cerevisterol" - Worth a redlink? It has a proper name at least!
  • Categories include "Fungi of Chile", but Chile/South America is not mentioned in the article

I've not looked into the sources or the images. Nothing too serious, but I do think the lack of information on the variety is less than ideal. J Milburn (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the condition that source and image checks come back OK. Seems to cover all the bases, and well written. J Milburn (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sasata (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its robust fruit body can grow up to 15 cm (5.9 in) in diameter and 20 cm (7.9 in) tall, and resembles a marine coral. It is densely branched, and the branches, which originate from a stout, massive base, are swollen at the tips and divided into several small branchlets. The color of the branches... — Seem to be a lot of branches, is it possible to lose at least one?
  • to set them apart — for identification is clearer and avoids repetition of "them" in this sentence
  • nuclear large subunit ribosomal DNA — I'm not totally sure what this means, but should it be "large-subunit"?
  • Linked the large subunit; no hyphenation required. Sasata (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have several redundant uses of "color" and its derivatives, eg and white to buff in color with pink to purplish-red branch tips.... Initially white in color, in age it turns pale yellow ... Old fruit bodies can fade to become almost white,[18] or may be ochre colored [should be hyphenated anyway]... the orange, reddish, or purplish-colored branchlets.
  • the toxic compound — arsenic isn't a compound, it's an element
  • I'm happy with your responses and there is nothing deal-breaking from the other current reviews, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under taxonomy, I agree that the sentence about taxonomic synonyms reads oddly. Perhaps separate the bit about var. alba, and move it after the two extant varieties, giving something like: "A. A. Pearson's 1946 description of Clavaria botrytis var. alba is no longer considered to represent a distinct variety."? Or something along those lines?
  • You may wish to link "large subunit", which is correct without the hyphen by convention, to 28S ribosomal RNA.
  • Anything to say in Description about var. compactospora? I assume there's a difference in spore size, based on the name.
  • Is there any order to the species listed in the Similar Species section? It doesn't feel like there's any logical ordering or progression there. Maybe alphabetize if there's nothing better? It also seems weird that Ramaria is spelled out on its second appearance in this paragraph rather than its first.
  • Have abbreviated in the correct order now. Still pondering about a better way to reorder this. Sasata (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what the best way to order that is, either, but there's absolutely no way I would hold up promotion over it.
  • I would reorder the sentences in the first paragraph of Habitat, because it feels like the text is jumping around. I might suggest: 1. "An ectomycorrhizal species..."; 2. "In a study..."; 3. "Records of associations..."; 4. "Fruit bodies grow..."; 5. "It can also grow..."; 6. "Ramaria botrytis is..."; 7. "In Korea...". That keeps the sentences about broadleaf trees together, and keeps the sentences about preferred habitats and growth patterns together. Alternatively, the snowbank sentence could come before sentence 4 in my ordering, if the sources suggest that behavior warrants greater emphasis.
  • I like the flow of that rearrangement, thanks – done. Sasata (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad I could help!
  • In Distribution, "associates with the tree species Douglas-fir". Cut "the tree species" as superfluous?
  • We know that var. compactospora is Italian from the Taxonomy section, but do Schild and Ricci give anything more specific to add to the Distribution section?
  • I wonder ... should the header of the Similar Species image be "Lookalike Ramaria" instead of "Ramaria lookalikes"? The latter, to me, implies things that look like Ramaria, but aren't, which the former might successfully convey the idea of Ramaria that look like the article's subject. Maybe. Anyway, this isn't an objection, just a curiosity; the article has my full support at this point. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your review Squeamish; I've changed the image header as per your suggestion. Sasata (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead looks good:

  • Link "marine coral"?
  • The sentence about spores is unlikely to be helpful for a non-expert reader. I suggest mentioning, for example, how often spores are released, or how many spores are released at a time. Maybe these are way off the mark, but that may illustrate my point: if the reader doesn't know what spores are, the current spore sentence is meaningless.
  • Well, spore is linked, so the few people who don't know what a spore is can find out easily enough. I get your point in general though, microscopic details of a fungus are usually the least accessible bits of information (and probably least interesting) to the general populace. I could leave the sentence out completely, but then then lead wouldn't have any material from the Microscopic characteristics subsection of the article, and the spore morphology is important in this species as it helps distinguish it from several similar species. Details about frequency of spore release or numbers of spores released aren't known for this species, or for many of the thousands of fruit body-forming fungi out there.
  • "first described scientifically in 1797" by whom?
  • "Fruit bodies of Ramaria botrytis are edible" Is this used in any cuisine? Is it edible only in the sense that it won't kill you?
  • I added a bit about the taste, but think that further details are best left until later. Sasata (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "laboratory tests show" The rest of the lead does not explain how the information was acquired, so why should this sentence do so? I suggest cutting this phrase, which will help to shorten a somewhat lengthy sentence.
  • "strains of drug-resistant bacteria that cause disease in humans." Examples?
  • I'd rather not put emphasis on on the antimicrobial properties of fruit body extracts in the lead (weighting issues), I think it's covered adequately in the article without undue emphasis.
  • All top-level sections are adequately represented in the lead. Yay!
  • A quick check did noy reveal any lead statements which conflict with or are missing from the body. Yay!

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for looking C62, I hope my changes are satisfactory, but I'm happy to consider further tweaks if you think they'd help the article. Sasata (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Support on prose and comprehensiveness by Cwmhiraeth.

  • In the lead, do you need such precision in the conversions when 15 and 20 cm are obviously approximations?
  • Not in the lead, no – fixed. Sasata (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The flesh is thick and white. Its spores, ..." Is it not the fungus that has spores, not the flesh?
  • "13.8 by 4.7 micrometers" - links to wrong page.
  • "... species with coral-shaped fruit bodies." - Since corals come in a great variety of shapes, this description is not ideal.
  • I don't disagree with you, but there's a whole group of fungi that are (unfortunately) colloquially called "coral fungi". I replaced with the linked technical term, clavarioid fungi. Sasata (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... can reach dimensions of 7 to 15 cm (2.8 to 5.9 in) wide and 6 to 20 cm (2.4 to 7.9 in) tall." - "can reach" implies a maximum and not a range.
  • Good point. Replaced "can reach dimensions of" with "are". Sasata (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • First paragraph of description. Is a fruit body a number of branches as illustrated in the adjoining image? If so, you need to think carefully about the description and the use of plural and singular words. Does the fruit body have a single common stem? And what about the colouring, are you talking about the stem or the branches or what? I am confused.
  • I've reworked this paragraph, how does it sound now? Sasata (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From which part of the fruit body are the spores liberated?
Added. Sasata (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the purpose of using Melzer's reagent?
  • When discussing R. araiospora you state that "... it lacks any discernible odor" - I don't believe you have previously mentioned whether Ramaria botrytis has an odor?
  • You're correct, it was mentioned later in the edibility ("Uses") section. I've now moved the odor up to the description section. Sasata (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some inconsistency in the use of the Oxford comma. (The one I noticed is "Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)").
  • The serial comma isn't required for a list of two items. Sasata (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Others warn that some individuals may experience laxative effects from consuming the mushroom" - To whom does "others" apply?
  • Changed to "Other authors". Sasata (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a pity that Wikipedia does not have an article on "nicotianamine".
  • I agree, I'll whip up a stub soon. Sasata (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... their potential health benefits associated with reduced risk of chronic and degenerative diseases." - Maybe this should read "their potential health benefits which are associated with reduced risk of chronic and degenerative diseases.
  • Hmmm, I don't think adding the "which" is necessary, but I've tweaked the sentence anyway. Sasata (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your careful reading and helpful commentary. Sasata (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks good now. Changing my "comments" to "support". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- almost there, check your duplicate links... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... how'd I miss those? I removed most (left a couple intentionally in the Similar species section). Sasata (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2013 (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/Ramaria_botrytis/archive1&oldid=1089817072"