Talk:Galerina/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am nominating this for reassessment because it came up in discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyathus‎ as an older GA promotion that is now a deficient article on a couple of levels.

1. My primary complaint is that GAs now need at least one citation per paragraph to pass my standard of citation sufficiency. Each paragraph of an article structured well enough to be a GA-Class article should present a distinct topic and should have at least one citation for that topic.
   1. I see that there has been significant editing without making much of a dent in this complaint.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
2. This article needs at least a two paragraph WP:LEAD. Thus we need more content in the LEAD.
3. Why is there a one line section? Do something about that.
4. At the FA level, I had requested a lot of information for Cyathus‎ in the FAC discussion mentioned above. I can not hold a GA to the same standard. However, I would like a summary statement about the 300 species in terms of their rarity, extinction, endangerment, etc. E.G., there have been 500 species of this, over 300 of which continue to exist, of these X# are rare/endangered. Alternatively, there are 300 species today, which is a sharp jump from X years ago when there were only Y known species. That would be a good sentence for a lead. In the text you could expand. In X region or climate type the number of known species has expanded due to yada yada.
5. Do you ever describe the lifespan of most species in this genus. Is it days, months, years?
   1. Do these survive prolonged sub-freezing winter temperatures?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
6. Do you ever explain what is the length of a generation? I.E., how often can reproduction occur?
7. What are the sizes of this genus. Do they range from a cm to an inch or do the get to be a foot high or in diameter?
8. Does this toxicity affect all life forms. Are there foragers who are immune to its toxins. I am trying to understand where it is in the food chain.
9. What are the nutrients that it thrives on?

I do not need the same breadth and depth I am attempting to coax at the FA level in the discussion mentioned above, but there is room for improvement here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of changing your list to a numbered one so that the points you bring up can be more easily assessed. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My response: 1 is well taken – referencing is inadequate, and points stated in the article need better referencing. 2 needs an intro that better summarizes the article, but I dispute that an article this length needs a two-paragraph lead. Lead length is related to article length, and this is not a long article. 3 strikes me as a bit of a quip – this information is in its own section because it really doesn't belong in the others. There is room for expansion of this section, but there really isn't much information on toxins other than X species contains Y. I find questions like 4-6 and 8-9 to be very naive and mycologically uninformed. First, fungi are not animals and defining things like "lifespan" and "generation time" is difficult at best, and in any even, such data simply do not exist for most species. Questions about what organisms the toxins affect (other than humans) are not well-understood and in any event are more relevant to the articles on the toxins themselves. Studies of nutrient needs for most organisms are generally focused on large taxonomic groups – there has been work on fungal physiology that has looked at the nutrient requirements of fungi in a generalized sense, perhaps broken down by ecotype, and generally using model organisms (eg, Neurospora), but the assumption that such data exists for a random genus of wild mushrooms is silly. As for size, I suppose I can be a bit more detailed about size range, but again, describing the size of fruiting bodies over an entire genus forces one to generalize a great deal. Also keep in mind that fruiting body size can be markedly affected by local environmental conditions, so fruiting bodies that are considerably larger or smaller than what would be considered typical are entirely possible.

One criticism I would add is that the article is not as current as it should be. There has been taxonomic work done in the last three years concerning Galerina that really belongs in the article.

Peter G Werner (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I am mycologically uninformed. I was called in to comment on a FA for a related topic and this one came up. I do not know much about either, but am willing to assess whether the uninformed reader (E.G., a high school biology student doing a research project) would be satisfied. #1 is the primary complaint for a GAR. The rest is just stuff you can do to make it better since it is under scrutiny. Any of the remainder that you are able to respond to by improving the article will be helpful. I hope to see improvement on the article as opposed to debate here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

This will fail if one is not addressed. I.E., either add citations or it will be delisted. After delisting your recourse is to accept or appeal to a broader spectrum of people at WP:GAR regarding my delisting for failing 1. Please make an effort on this front.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think 2 will need to be reevaluated at the conclusion of GAR editorial responses in the main body. The lead summarizes the body content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I continue to think 3 is a problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think your response discards number 4. I think there should be a statement made in response to that query.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize this is a genus. Don't let me lead you down a wrong path on 7. Don't say anything misleading.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not qualified to assess almost any other points.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This article has been delisted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)