Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Agaricus deserticola/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 SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011 [1].

Agaricus deserticola[edit]

Agaricus deserticola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agaricus deserticola is a mushroom related to the common button mushroom, but adapted for growth in dry habitats. As usual, I've exhausted my sources and have tweaked the prose and formatting to the best of my ability. Looking forward to your comments. Sasata (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • "The peridium may also rip in such a way so that it appears as if there is a ring at the top of the stem" - source?
  • Added. Forgot to re-ref when I split paragraphs. Sasata (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is CABI?
  • Changed to CAB International, it's linked in a prior ref. Sasata (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issue number for ref 7?

Some thoughts-

  • I'm not sure a discussion of the taxonomical history is the best way to open the lead; it's something of interest to very few people.
  • Shifted lead paragraphs so the more lay-friendly stuff is at the front. Sasata (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and thus unavailable for use" Does this make sense?
  • It's a standard phrase in taxonomy, but I catch your drift. Removed by rewording. Sasata (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fields, prairie" The plural to the singular is odd- how about "grassland", or something?
  • Some of the synonyms you mention in the prose are not listed in the taxobox?
  • "an outer volval layer, a middle cuticular layer (cutis), and an inner (tramal)" We have potential links appropriate to all these layers
  • "gleba is lamellate—divided into wavy plates or lamellae—some of which are fused together to form irregular chambers" some of the gleba are fused together?
  • "columella" ?
  • I thought it was obvious from the context ("The apex of the stem extends into the gleba to form a columella"), but I've now italicized columella in the "word as word" spirit ... is that sufficient? Sasata (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "stem and peridium regions" Slightly ambiguous. Perhaps the phrase would be something like "peridial regions"?
  • Adjectival, sure—done. 02:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Generally great, no real qualms. Very nicely written, curious species. The desert adaptations section was interesting- it felt like science lessons at school :P J Milburn (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, JM. Sasata (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images all check out, copyrightwise. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, seems to be ready for featured status. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • in dry, semi-arid habitats. — "dry" is redundant, can't be wet semi-arid
  • changed comma to "or" (dry is a general term, semi-arid has a specific meaning, and is used in the sources, so I'd like to keep both). Sasata (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other similar mushrooms with which A. deserticola might be confused — "similar" is redundant, can't be confused with dissimilar
  • Why does texense become texensis?
  • I think it has to do with declension of masculine/feminine/neuter words in Latin, because the specific epithet has to agree with the genus name, but sources don't say specifically. Sasata (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • apical is unlinked and unexplained
  • iodine — I'd link this
  • Agaricus deserticola has a positive Schaeffer's reaction — I think it would read better if the first sentence of the paragraph was moved to end
  • puffball — no link or explanation
  • after a rain — sounds odd, perhaps "after rain" or "after rainfall"?
  • Changed to the latter. Thanks Jim. Sasata (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Another well-written article on a fungus. Good job! Out of curiosity, have you considered writing an article on the anatomy of mushrooms? I know there's a lot of variation, but given how many technical terms there are for each part, it might be nice to have a general article that fully illustrates each trait. Anyway, just an unrelated thought... – VisionHolder « talk » 04:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Has anyone noticed that the picture in the infobox makes the mushroom look HUGE?! The problem lies in the presence of teeny tiny houses in the background, which is exacerbated by the fact that the ground is not visible. Is there any chance this image can be replaced or re-cropped from the original?
  • I had noticed, but thought the striking statuesque appearance of the fruit bodies against the deep blue sky and tiny houses in the distance was compelling. This is a possible replacement, but the cigarette butt is ugly and distracting. I suppose I could move the current pics around so that the second image in the Description section is the lead... but is the lead pic really so bad? Sasata (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's certainly bad enough that I would make a point of bringing it up! :P I'm not going to push the issue since I may be alone here, but I trust that you'll change the image if anyone else seems to think it looks weird. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the lead should mention the (as-yet unknown) edibility of the mushroom. This will help balance the lead, which is currently saturated with physical characteristics and the naming dispute.
  • I've now mentioned the edibility in the lead (and split into three paragraphs). Sasata (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Why not cite the protologues for Secotium decipiens ([2]) and Podaxon strobilaceus [not strobilaceous] ([3]). For the latter, see also [4]. Even better is [5]. It is, in fact, listed in Index Fungorum; see [6], as is S. decipiens, though neither is given as a synonym of Agaricus deserticola.
  • Good idea, I've cited both of those now. Removed the part about them not being in IF or MycoBank. Sasata (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be my ignorance of botanical nomenclature, but why can't it be called Agaricus decipiens or Agaricus strobilaceus?
  • Agaricus decipiens was used previously (1788), and later sanctioned by Persoon, so is unavailable. Agaricus strobilaceus Cooke was used in 1891 (now is Amanita strobilacea (Cooke) McAlpine). Sasata (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to [7] (for Moreno et al., 2007) is dead.
  • Hmm, that's odd, it works for me. Could you try again? Sasata (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 13:39, 11 April 2011 (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/Agaricus_deserticola/archive1&oldid=1046365868"