Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fungus/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 SandyGeorgia 19:36, 22 August 2009 [1].

---

Fungus

Nominator(s): Malljaja, Sasata (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Fungus/archive1

Fungus is a core topic, and on average, receives several thousand page views per day. It is also the flagship article for the Fungi Wikiproject. Co-nominator Malljaja and I have been working on it for several months, and I think it's up now up to standard. Looking forward to seeing the article improve even more with the help of your collective input. Sasata (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is mostly very good, but it's missing for the infobox image File:Fungi collage.jpg; please see Template:Taxobox/doc for how to fix that. For File:Ergotamine3.png the alt text "Chemical structure" isn't informative; in similar situations I've simply used the systematic (IUPAC) name, which you can get from Ergotamine, as being better than nothing. One other thing: for File:Ascocarp2.png the alt text should describe the locations in words, rather than teasing the visually-impaired reader by saying that the image shows the locations. Eubulides (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Alright, have made the changes suggested. Sasata (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That was fast! Thanks; it looks good. Eubulides (talk) 07:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments It would be awesome to get this to FA and it looks close - I wish I didn't have more pressing priorities so I could help more. So for now I'll leave you with some thoughts about the Human use section:

First paragraph: I'm not sure what purpose this paragraph serves, being a mixture of unrepeated information and an incomplete summary of the Human use section. I would suggest antibiotics would surely be worth its own subheading, being one of humanity's greatest discoveries last century. At present, the article states that fungi produce antibiotics, but does not clarify whether current industrial production relies on fungi (I believe it does), as opposed to using sythetic methods.

Have started a section on Antibiotics to address this point. Let me know what you think. Sasata (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Cultured foods: At the moment there's an ambiguity which seems to (incorrectly) imply A. oryzae is used for tempeh production. It's probably worth mentioning A. oryzae is also used for sake production, an enormous industry in Japan. If you can find a good source, it would also be nice to have a sentence describing the "domestication" of fungi - fungi like A. oryzae and Aspergillus sojae seem as different from their wild relatives as poodles are from wolves.

I've corrected this and included separate refs for each A oryzae and Rhizopus. The issue of domestication is an interesting one, though perhaps not without controversy, since domestication of fungi probably occurred via a process that consisted of unwittingly choosing fungal species or strains that gave a preferred outcome in food production. That's different from that of say, dogs and horses, where selection was more direct and probably less fortuitous. I've inserted a section on the relatedness of the "domesticated" Aspergilli vs their closely related wild and toxin-producing relatives, without getting into too much detail here. Malljaja (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Other: Ideally it would be nice to have a sentence or two describing what it is about fungi that make them ideal for the industrial production of all those metabolites and enzymes. Off the top of my head: simple nutritional requirements permit the use of low-cost materials or even waste products as growth substrates; cheap and simple separation by filtration of myclelial flocs or pellets from the growth media (cf. bacteria); efficient secretion pathways permit high yields of proteins; as eukaryotes, fungi can do post-translational modifications of proteins (e.g. glycosylation) that bacteria cannot; gene splicing techniques permit the production of heterologous proteins (eg. bovine chymosin) and the rational enhancement of yields; biological production in general produces optically pure compounds (not racemates), which is important in e.g. lactic acid.

I've included a small section mentioning the enormity of natural products produced by the fungi in the "Human uses" lead. With regards to heterologous expression, I've given a specific example from a recent outstanding paper in which they describe the assembly of a novel benzylisoquinoline pathway (which provides the backbone for drugs like codeine and morphine) in baker's yeast. Metabolic engineering is a "hot" topic and too big an apple to get a good bite in a general entry like this—so I've only included what I think is a representative example, which also illustrates the direction of this, ie, away from filamentous fungi, which are more messy to grow, to the easy-to-grow unicellular yeasts. Malljaja (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Model organisms: The article is incomplete without some mention of the tremendous contribution the study of model fungi has made to our understanding of basic biology. The one gene-one enzyme hypothesis came from the study of Neurospora crassa, which is also used for studying circadian rhythms – who knew a mold could have its own 24-hour clock? Aspergillus nidulans is surely worth a mention, and S. cerevisiae must be the most-studied eukaryotic cell on the planet.

Excellent point! Much of eukaryotic cell biology, molecular biology, and genetics that I have learnt early on was from experimental work with S cerevisiae. So, I've created a section "Biological model organisms" that now houses your suggested reference. It still needs some comprehensive refs, which I'll fill in once I get to my books/finished slogging through pubmed. I've also included some recent models for human and plant pathogenicity, which may be relevant. Malljaja (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you for your comments, you make some good points. I'll think about this and integrate your suggestions into the article shortly. Sasata (talk) 07:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Spectacular work Sasata and Malljaja! I'm amazed how much has been accomplished in 24 hours.

Some specific responses:

Antibiotics: See Talk:Fungus#Antibiotics

I hope to have addressed these with the recently added info on the relationships of antibiotics with quorum sensing and as chemical defence. Malljaja (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Cultured foods: I like the new additions. Malljaja, I think there's a bit more to domestication than you imply above – there's good evidence that A. oryzae, at least, has evolved over the course of its domestication (eg see the section on starch-degrading enzymes in Nature 438:1157). I think the level of detail in the article at present is good.

Thanks, for the nudging and suggesting to include it as example for domestication. Malljaja (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Others/lead: I understand what you mean about metabolic engineering being too big to cover, but I think there should at least be some acknowledgement somewhere that filamentous fungi can also be genetically manipulated. At the moment it almost reads as though yeasts, specifically, have just become amenable to manipulation. Is it really true that the direction at the moment is away from filamentous fungi?  :'-(  If there's genuine consensus in the field, so be it, but I'd be wary about putting too much weight on one review... I think researchers tend to talk up their favourite group of organisms, as I'm sure I do with by admittedly-somewhat-messy-but-nevertheless-easy-to-grow Aspergilli. "Facile" seems a bit obtuse here – could "more facile and faster" be replaced by "more efficient"?

I've inserted a short sentence on genetic engineering of fungi and included a landmark methods paper as citation. You're right that I over-emphasized the shift from yeast species, yet it is remarkable that yeast can be engineered to make such fairly complex molecules, considering that S cerevisiae hardly makes any natural products in nature (if one doesn't count ethanol ;-)). So, while Aspergillus and other industrially used filamentous fungi are probably still going to be used for secondary metabolite production, they've now got some serious competition. I've replaced "more facile and faster" w/ "efficient".Malljaja (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Model organisms: This is exactly what I wanted to see :-). I think all the species could be wikilinked, even when it means duplicating links – it looks odd having some linked and others not, and none are linked nearby.

Done. Malljaja (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 15:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments - for now. Clearly this is an important core article and it has been on my Watchlist for months. It is long and takes a long time to read. There is so much information here about this diverse Kingdom that I feel many casual readers will drown in the detail. It is difficult to avoid comparing the article with Bacteria, Archaea and Virus, all of which are FA, and faced the similar challenge of condensing huge subjects into digestible, not-overly technical encyclopaedic contributions. I shall be interested to read any comments from reviewers from a non-scientific background, especially those regarding the article's accessibility to lay readers. I feel that this may be the major obstacle to reaching a consensus here. A few comments on the prose:

• Here, "More recently, fungi are being used as sources for antibiotics used in medicine and for various enzymes," - the "are being" sounds wrong. How about something like, "Since (when?) fungi have been used as sources.."?

Now "More recently, fungi have been used as sources for antibiotics in medicine..." Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• In this sentence, "Fungi are also deployed as biological agents to control weeds and pests." I think "deployed" is too strong a word" a simple "used" would suffice, and is "also" needed?

Changed as suggested. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Here, "The fruiting structures of a few species are used recreationally or in traditional ceremonies as a source of psychotropic compounds." It doesn't actually say that they are eaten. It is assumed that the readers already know this.

Have changed "are used" to "are consumed". Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• This part, "Fungi can cause deterioration of manufactured materials and buildings, and represent significant pathogens of humans and other animals, and losses due to fungal diseases of crops (e.g., rice blast disease) or food spoilage can have a large impact on human food supplies and local economies." needs to be split because the structure of the sentence is illogical. The problem starts with the "can cause" which has to connect with "represent" and "can have".

Now "Fungi can deteriorate manufactured materials and buildings, become significant pathogens of humans and other animals. Losses due to fungal diseases..." Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Here, "Fungi typically grow as hyphae, which extend at their tips, containing an organized assembly of vesicles" - I think this would be better: "Fungi typically grow as hyphae—which extend at their tips—that contain an organized assembly of vesicles"

Agree, have changed as suggested. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• "Diploid" is linked at its second occurrence.

Now linked at first occurrence as well. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't like "hypersaline areas" - and suggest something like "environments with high salt concentrations".

Changed. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Here, "but the true dimension of fungal diversity is still unknown", will the truth ever be known? I word recast this sentence.

How about "...the true dimension of global fungal diversity is not well understood."

• In this phrase, "the number of plant species in select environments", select doesn't sound right.

Have changed "select" to "selected", is that better? Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• There is repetition here, "Most fungi grow as thread-like filamentous microscopic structures called hyphae, which are microscopic filaments".

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Will readers know what is meant by "crosses"?

Changed to " Mating experiments between fungal isolates..", and moved the Mating in fungi piped link to here.

• Here, "Species may possess vegetative incompatibility systems that allow mating only between individuals of opposite mating type", is the surreal "vegetative incompatibilty" needed?

Not for the average reader, have removed the esoteric term. Now "Some species may allow mating only between individuals..." Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Something missing here, "These sporangiospores are means of rapid dispersal of the fungus".

Fixed this sentence. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• In this clause, "suggesting that they were the dominant life form at this time—nearly 100% of the fossil record available from this period", the emdash doesn't work well as a connector.

Now "...dominant life form at this time, representing nearly 100%..." Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Here, "Similarly, females of several wood wasp species (genus Sirex) inject their eggs in addition to spores of the wood-rotting fungus Amylostereum areolatum; the growth of the fungus provides ideal nutritional conditions for the development of the wasp larvae" - I think we have to spell out what the eggs are injected into.

Right, now "... inject their eggs together with spores of the wood-rotting fungus Amylostereum areolatum into the sapwood of pine trees;" Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• There is repetiton in the Human use section: "other fungal species are used in the production of soy sauce and tempeh" and later "Mycelial fungi, such as the shoyu koji mold (Aspergillus oryzae), are used to brew Shoyu (soy sauce), and to prepare tempeh", for example.
• Here, "Most notable species include those of the genus Agaricus,[143][144] Ganoderma,[145] and Cordyceps,[146] which are being used in the treatment of several diseases", I am interested in why we have "being" and not a simple "which are used". To me the use of being implies some sort of trial or experimental usage.

This sentence was added by another editor. Have changed to your suggested wording (after confirming in source). Sasata (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Lastly, for now, does "cheeses" really need linking? Graham Colm ^Talk 12:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, unlinked. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

More comments:

• The section about the giant Armillaria ostoyae colony seems misplaced under Evolution – perhaps move to Morphology or Growth and physiology?

It's now in the proper section, Morphology. Sasata (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• After "Currently, seven phyla are proposed:", it's not immediately obvious that each of the seven subsequent paragraphs refers to one of these phyla. Changing the following paragraph to begin with "The microsporidia..." might help, or consider re-ordering. I personally think seven bullet points would be ideal, though I know some editors don't like bulleted lists in FAs.

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made the bold change of adding bullet points, as I agree that highlighting the phyla names in some way makes the section easier to read. It means both images will have to be on the right. That said, anyone that's offended by this stylistic change is free to alter the layout. Sasata (talk) 05:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Great work developing this article. I think you have both done an excellent job! One minor point would be that the article currently links to sapwood, which is a disambiguation page. Perhaps you could link to the specific article? Regardless, again, great work. ---kilbad (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Now fixed. Sasata (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Also, looking at the Checklinks, I believe links/URLs are not to be added within citations in which a journal subscription is needed to view the full text. ---kilbad (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

  Ok, didn't know that. Have removed the two subscription-based urls. Thanks! Sasata (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

  This is untrue, the only reason why the tool separates those links is because some were returning a 400 error. — Dispenser 19:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - It's great to see how far this article has come in a short time, and is certainly one we should have at FA quality. There are still some deficiencies in the content and style of the text. I've made some style revisions myself, and will be making more. I will point out just one specific section lacking content, that on Evolution. "Evolution" means "change", and this section does little to cover the change of fungi through time. It does have a number of facts about early appearances, and does mention a few changes, such as the transition to land and the fact that early fungi had flagellated cells. However, where is information about:

• the origin of the Asco- and/or Basidiomycota?
• the earliest sporocarp fossil?
• the earliest lichenization events?
• what changes accompanied the transition to land?
• what is the nature of most fungal fossils? (what parts, what scale, and what form of fossilization)

There is quite a lot of missing information in this very important section, and more than a few well-known papers that were not referenced. Taylor & Taylor's The Biology and Evolution of Fossil Plants is the gold standard among paleobotany texts, and has an entire chapter on Fungi, Bacteria, and Lichens. I recommend a thorough look there and at some of the papers cited therein. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll work on this section, I can get a hold of the text you suggest pretty quickly. Thanks for the comments, and the copyediting. Sasata (talk) 23:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded this section to address at least some of the points you mention above. Am reluctant to expand much more, and think further information would be better placed in the daughter article (which is not much more than a stub now, unfortunately, but easily has enough associated literature to be featured as well.) Sasata (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll see whether I can help. The section currently is very choppy and lacks context for readers. There isn;t even an explanation of the form in which most fungal fossils are preserved. Consider that most people think of "fossil" as a dinosaur bone or cast of a trilobite, but this isn't at all what is usually meant by a fossil of a fungus. At the very least, there should be a full paragraph with an explanation of what a fungus fossil is like, how they are found and studied, and the limitations of interpreting such fossils. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

After consulting T&T, I've now added the additional information you requested. I disagree that a whole paragraph should be devoted to describing fungal fossils, seems to me that that level of detail is better suited to the daughter article; for this section I've given one sentence plus hints later (i.e. mention of spores and hyphae further down). Let me know if you think the content is sufficient, and hopefully Malljaja will tighten my prose :) I'm also tempted to put a picture in that section, as it's 4 paragraphs long now, but barring finding a pic of a fossilized spore or something, am not sure what could go in there. Maybe EM of a spore like this]? Sasata (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The content looks much better now. It still needs a bit of refinement, which is much easier for me to help with than initial article hunting (since I don't currently live near a major research library). The first paragraph is pretty much what I wanted to see in terms of describing what a fungal fossil is (a microscopic permineralization) and how it is studied. The first paragraph thus provides the context necessary for understanding the rest of the section. As for images, you might contact one of the people who took one of the pictures here, as they were willing to grant permission in the past. I unfortunately have no slides that I have full rights to. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Image review – Most of this is pretty good, though there were some issues that I cleaned up. However, I do require your assistance in the following case(s):

• File:Neotyphodium_coenophialum.jpg – Check the categories, please?
• File:Armillaria ostoyae MO.jpg – Check the categories, please?
• File:Cyathus stercoreus Fruchtkörper.JPG – Please give English translations of the description and source.
• File:Wn8-05-2.JPG – Please fill in the description, and see if you can get the image renamed.

Every other image looks good. NW (Talk) 20:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the nominators should be held responsible for these problems. The only potential concerns here are sources, free license or fair use. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That's ok, I got to make use of my otherwise useless 4 years of high school German. Have done as requested with the images, except for the file renaming, I'll have to find someone else to help with that. Sasata (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I tagged the file for rename, but have forgotten that moving of files is currently disabled on Commons. Ah well; it will be fixed eventually.

Everything with images looks great now. NW (Talk) 04:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments this article looks much better than when I last looked a few months ago - the prose is full of information so will be critical to make it as accessible to the general populace without introducing amibguity. I will make straightforward changes (please revert ones which inadvertently change meaning) and note other queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Some have lost the ability to form reproductive structures, and propagate solely by vegetative growth. Yeasts, molds, and mushrooms are examples of fungi. - I note these as the way they are juzaposed makes it look like the three examples in the latter are somehow related to the former. Some juggling of sentences will help with this.

...wine, beer, and soy sauce. - I would have thought bread was a more widespread example than soy sauce... (3 most common/global maybe best here?)

More recently, fungi have been used as sources.. - could be more exact and specify from the time that penicillin was discovered.

However, only limited and incomplete information exists on the true biodiversity.. - be nice to use only one adjective here surely (?)

All of these excellent points have been addressed in recent edits. Please advise if further tweaks are necessary. Sasata (talk) 06:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments: I have initiated a line-by-line prose review on the article's talk page. Please respond to individual concerns there. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your comments; I've responded here. Malljaja (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comments Thanks Sasata and Malljaja for acting on so many of my comments. The recent additions to antibiotics and to the human uses intro are great. A couple more suggestions:

• I think the lead should clarify the distinction between yeasts, molds and mushrooms. Probably the third and last sentences of the first paragraph should be merged and expanded. I suspect many readers would assume molds and yeasts are separate groups – that these terms only refer to morphologies should be made explicit early.

I've merged the two sentences into, "Commonly known fungi include yeasts, molds, and mushrooms, which are general descriptions based on appearance and growth form that are often applied to groups of unrelated species." I hope this better captures how common name usage is often unrelated to scientific groupings. Malljaja (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• From Characteristics: "Fungal hyphae may have multiple nuclei within each hyphal compartment, and many budding yeasts are diploid." I'd suggest eliminating the second part (diploidy is not unique to fungi), and merging the first part into the first bullet point under "Unique features". Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 16:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Malljaja (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Current ref 103 (Assembing..) is lacking a publisher
• Current ref 120 (Wong G. ...) is lacking a publisher
• Current ref 171 (Harris, R....) is lacking a publisher.
• What makes http://www.treesforlife.org.uk/forest/mythfolk/flyagaric.html a reliable source?
• Current ref 185 (BBC...) is lacking a last access date

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments—I've replaced most of the web-linked sources with references from journals, and checked and included an access date (I left this one in for easy access). I agree that the treesforlife site is not a reliable source (while interesting, the author does not give any sources), so I've exchanged this one with a journal citation as well. Malljaja (talk) 16:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the link to sporocarp. Sasata (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The lead needs reorganizing. A basic article like this should be accessible to a high school student, but already the first two sentences use words like "eukaryotic", "monophyletic", and "phylogenetically". The reader has to work way down through a series of obscure words to get to the main things she wants to know, which are that (1) fungi consist of yeast, molds, mushrooms, and related organisms, and (2) fungi form a separate kingdom, distinct from plants and animals. It's okay to become more technical later, but a high school student should be able to get an overview of the topic without being hammered. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... I thought the lead was pretty accessible already. I somewhat agree with rewording or removing "monophyletic" and "phylogenetically", but in my experience, most people know what "eukaryotic" means before high school. Would like to hear other opinions on how accessible the lead is, and perhaps some other specific examples of things that should be reworded or simplified. Thanks for your input. Sasata (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, I think the lead is accessible. This topic can be jargon-y/technical, but I think overall the editors have made the subject accessible for general readers without loosing meaning in the process. ---kilbad (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've re-arranged the lead following your suggestion, ie, I moved the sentence containing the words in question downward. I removed "phylogenetically", since this may also prompt the misconception to those not familiar with the term that the fungi differ from other organisms only by some exotic character. I concur with Sasata that most high school students should be well acquainted with "eukaryotic". Looking at an FA such as Genetics, I note that it also contains some technical language (e.g., heredity) that are not part of common vernacular. Thanks! Malljaja (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that the nominators ask Tim Vickers for his opinion of the Lead? He is skilled at pitching these important sections at the just the right level. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Graham! I've just left Tim a message to that effect. Malljaja (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose based on the prose - the article needs to be more accessible to the lay reader. I am a graduate student in the humanities with a strong interest in the sciences (I read popular science books for fun), but at times I was puzzled reading this article. I am one of those people who had their last science class ten years ago and doesn't use scientific terms every day. Let me show you what happens when I try to read the article (this is only a sample):

A fungus (pronounced /ˈfʌŋɡəs/) is a eukaryotic (some specific kind of cell I remember learning about long ago - didn't click) organism that is a member of the kingdom Fungi (pronounced /ˈfʌndʒaɪ/ or /ˈfʌŋɡaɪ/).[3] Fungi are heterotrophic (clicked - "eat food to make energy" is how I interpreted that word) organisms that possess a chitinous (clicked - I still don't understand) cell wall, and most species grow as multicellular filaments called hyphae (clicked - long cells that grow?) that form a mycelium (clicked - "vegetative part of a fungus" - I don't understand that, really); some species grow as single cells. Fungi reproduce sexually or asexually via spores, which are often produced on specialized structures or in fruiting bodies (clicked - my initial guess that this was similar to regular fruit seems incorrect). Some fungi have lost the ability to form reproductive structures, and propagate solely by vegetative growth. Commonly known fungi include yeasts, molds, and mushrooms, which are general descriptions based on appearance and growth form that are often applied to groups of unrelated species. The fungi are a monophyletic (clicked - still don't understand term) group, also called the Eumycota (true fungi or Eumycetes), that is distinct from the structurally similar slime molds (myxomycetes) and water molds (oomycetes). The discipline of biology devoted to the study of fungi is known as mycology, which is often regarded as a branch of botany, but fungi are genetically more closely related to animals than to plants.

The problem with relying so extensively on links, as you can see, is that the leads of the linked articles are generally extremely poor, and therefore I was just as puzzled after I read the linked leads as before. Moreover, I had to click a lot during my reading. I persevered, but most readers will not. I am willing to put my ignorance on display here (!) and help the editors figure out solutions to these problems, if they so desire. Awadewit (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As a bird author I can sympathise with the difficulties of writing the lead - balancing size with precisison. It is easier to keep the lead down to size when you use accurate terms, but these terms can be difficult to navigate for the uninitiated. With regards to the above comments, I would suggest that the lead explains what hyphae (multicelular filaments) are, and most people could take a stab at what a fruiting body means, even if they aren't right about the details. It might be good to say that form the main body or mycelium or something to that effect, and I would certainly explain what monophyly means - perhaps The fungi are an evolutionary discrete group (monophyletic) or something along those lines. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

To try to make this a bit more concrete, here is a sketch of a rewrite of the first paragraph -- the rest of the lead is more readable. No doubt I've screwed up something or other here, but the point is to give an illustration of how to get ideas across without either being vague or bombarding the reader with too much terminology:

A fungus (pronounced /ˈfʌŋɡəs/) is a member of a large group of organisms that includes yeast, molds, and mushrooms. Although they were once considered to be plants, modern biologists classify the Fungi (pronounced /ˈfʌndʒaɪ/ or /ˈfʌŋɡaɪ/) as a separate kingdom, on the same level as the kingdoms of plants and animals. Fungal cells have cell walls, but unlike the cell walls of plants which are made of cellulose, the cell walls of fungi are made of chitin, the material that makes up the shells of insects. Fungi can be unicellular or multicellular. They reproduce via spores, which are often produced on specialized structures or in fruiting bodies, such as the head of a mushroom. In evolutionary terms, the fungi form a monophyletic group called the Eumycota (true fungi or Eumycetes), that is distinct from the structurally similar slime molds (myxomycetes) and water molds (oomycetes). The discipline of biology devoted to the study of fungi is known as mycology, which is often regarded as a branch of botany, even though genetic studies have shown that fungi are actually more closely related to animals than to plants.

Does that help at all? Looie496 (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes - that is an enormous help (and you are right that the rest of the lead is better). Again, if the editors are willing, I can point out other such sections in the article. Awadewit (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggested changes Looie496, I think they are an excellent template for improving accessibility of the lead and other sections. Before we do so, I'd like to voice some concerns that I hope will inform the debate on how to proceed with this. Awadewit, many thanks for your input, but I do not agree with your assertion "...that the leads of the linked articles are generally extremely poor..." I've just visited ~10 of the first entries linked from the lead, such as eukaryote, hypha, mycelium, and while they may not be at GA level, to characterize them as "extremely poor" is misleading, as they describe the terms sufficiently well within the first few sentences. To get an idea of the level of technical language in FA articles dealing with some "arcane" areas, such as, for example, Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector, White dwarf, and Proteasome, I find that these all require some level of prior knowledge, repeated reading, and perusing of linked articles to fully grasp the topics discussed. I trust that a lay reader genuinely interested in learning more about fungi (which are an extremely complex group of organisms) would also take that leap. Moreover, I'd be wary of calibrating the lead entirely to a presumptive lay audience, seeing that many readers of this entry may be students or even experts of other fields of biology who may not bother to go beyond the lead if they find it to be too simplistic. So these are my thoughts on this admittedly somewhat thorny issue. Many thanks again for both your input, and I hope we can reach a good consensus for further improvement of this entry. Malljaja (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Malljaja's sentiments about "aiming too low", but I do like Looie496's revised lead. Awadewit, thanks for your opinion, it is very valuable, and I was waiting for a "non-science type" to chime in about accessibility. If you could kindly make a list of sentences in the article (perhaps on the talk page) you think need rewording or simplifying, then we can deal with them on a case by case basis. Sasata (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. Awadewit (talk) 16:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the revised lead is good, except I don't think it is necessary t spell out what chitin is, that is one thing I think a link does much better. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I too want to praise Looie496's lead, and say that for the first time, it actually registered in my mind what "chitin" is. For the non-expert like me, even if the links are relatively informative, it gets exhausting clicking ever few words, as Awadewit has pointed out, and there is only so much information one retains after so much clicking in just a few sentences. Even after reading many fungi articles, this is the first time I have realized that they belong to a third kingdom, not animal nor vegetable, and that their cell walls are made of the same substance as insect shells. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

One small problem with Looie's new lead: currently it says Although they were once considered to be plants, modern biologists... As far as I know, modern biologists were never considered to be plants!  :) Please be sure to fix that misplaced modifier... MeegsC | Talk 20:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch — now fixed. Sasata (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Support My issues with the prose have now been addressed. I think an evolutionary timeline would be a nice addition whenever the authors have time to make one. I cannot speak to this article's comprehensiveness or accuracy, but I do feel that it is well-written and accessible. I've been spouting interesting fungus facts ever since I started reviewing this article, so I think the authors have also done an excellent job of presenting the information in a way that engages readers. Awadewit (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support and comments This is a mammoth undertaking, well done for taking it on. I have no background in mycology, but I found the article interesting and readable. Although the text is a little dense in places, I think it must be accepted that an article like this has to use technical terms or become submerged in glosses or misleading substitutions. Now the nitpicks:

• please check for padding words, notably “however”. Is it always needed? Worst offender is Moreover, both plants and fungi possess a cell wall, a feature absent in the Animal Kingdom. However, the fungi are now considered a separate kingdom, distinct from both plants and animals, from which they appear to have diverged around one billion years ago. Perhaps better as Both plants and fungi possess a cell wall, a feature absent in the Animal Kingdom, although the fungi are now considered a separate kingdom, distinct from both plants and animals, from which they appear to have diverged around one billion years ago.

I've removed multiple instances of "however", including the example you gave. I left the two-sentence structure to avoid an overly long sentence. Does this now read better? Malljaja (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Peach caption. I would prefer Mold covering a decaying peach. The frames were taken approximately 12 hours apart over a period of six days.

Done. Malljaja (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• The current classification of Kingdom Fungi, published in 2007..., better The 2007 classification of Kingdom Fungi...

Done. Malljaja (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well-known types of fungi are the edible and the poisonous mushrooms. Many species are commercially raised, but others must be harvested from the wild. This is nonsensical. Well-known types? Are there any that are not edible or poisonous. The second sentence is obviously dealing with edible forms, but the first suggests that it should refer to poisonous as well. I would split this section in two, Edible species and Poisonous species

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Done; I also re-worked some parts of this section, which have not been rigorously edited previously. I retained edible and poisonous species in one section to avoid too many subsections, but am open to slicing of the two topics if further requested. Many thanks for your support and your very helpful comments and suggestions. Malljaja (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Mostly OK with me Well-known fungi are the edible mushrooms. might be better as Some edible mushrooms are well-known examples of fungi. but no big deal, I leave it to your judgement Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Changed to "Edible mushrooms are well-known examples of fungi." I left out the ubiquitous "Some", because some[sic] editors take issue with that. Thanks again. Malljaja (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: The line one of the lead kind of suggests that yeast, molds and mushrooms are something different from Fungi but in fact they are also fungi. So, shouldn't it be changed to 'A fungus is any member...' rather than 'A fungus is a member...'. I am not happy with line one and it seems it should belong to 'Simple English' wiki rather than here. - DSachan (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

To elevate the first sentence above simple English Wiki and accommodate your suggested changes, I've borrowed a phrasing as used in line one of the Bacteria entry. Does this improve the lead now? Many thanks for your comments and valuable input. Malljaja (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: A picture of a plant pathogen would be nice. There's a nice mix of different sorts of fungi (rather than just mushrooms) but there doesn't seem to be a pathogen. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I just added a pic of the cool rust fungus Aecidium magellanicum. If there's no objections to its inclusion, I'll add alt text in a day or two. Sasata (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I've been thinking this for ages - we could really do with a diagram of a typical fungal cell as we currently have for plant and animal cells. I think that this would really improve the article. Smartse (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In the article there's several pictures that show a variety of fungal cell types: 1) a chytrid cell in the taxobox; 2) light microscopy of fungal hyphae growing in A. thaiana; 3) phase contrast microscopy of Morchella elata asci 4) microscopic view of arbuscular mycorrhizae 5) microscopic view of hyphae of the endophytic fungus Neotyphodium coenophialum 6) DIC microscopy of S. cerevisiae. Is there something specific you wanted to see? I checked the plant and animal articles and am not sure which pics there represent the "typical" cells of those kingdoms. Sasata (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• This article needs to be reviewed for WP:OVERLINKing ... I found words like animal linked. See WP:LAYOUT, is all of that "See also" needed, or can those terms be linked within the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  Note that in biology "animal" is a technical term, with a precise meaning that doesn't correspond exactly to its ordinary-language meaning. In distinguishing the kingdoms of plants, animals, and fungi, linking to an explanation of the technical definition could be quite valid. Looie496 (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello SandyGeorgia. I agree that the linking issue is one that deserves serious attention to balance the need for providing quick links to relevant information with that of non-distracted readability. Following your suggestion, I've moved most links from the "SA" section into the text, and I'll soon endeavour on cleaning up/re-ordering links as much as possible. As Looie pointed out, some of the links here direct the reader to technical descriptions, which they may wish to peruse. I'll have a look at this to see which ones are really needed, and which ones may be merely distraction. Many thanks for your input. Malljaja (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an unusual article for bluelink review and unusually dense in concepts which benefit from bluelinkage. I have taken out a few which are somewhat tangential or general, but left most in. Agree with Looie about a specific concept of plants and animals as kingdoms necessitating leaving their bluelinks. Tricky. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Sources analysis - There are multiple paragraphs without any citation, which is problematic. Three paragraphs without any citations. Seven paragraphs lacking citations for their final sentences. Multiple sections have extremely tiny paragraphs, which makes it seem like there might be a weight concern.

1. Wiki - "Fungi are used extensively to produce industrial chemicals like citric, gluconic, lactic, and malic acids, antibiotics, and even to make stonewashed jeans"

1. Source to this - The source lacks the word "citric", "gluconic", "lactic", "malic", "acid", etc.

2. I am concerned about sourcing. I would like someone to compare the language on the page on the paragraph beginning "The Ascomycota, commonly known as sac fungi" with this source (I lack current access). The grouping of technical terms seems like a place that would need to be checked thoroughly. Why? The article is only about one specific item and the paragraph lists many types.

3. This is one of three sources that is used to source this "Phylogenetic analysis has demonstrated conclusively that the Microsporidia, unicellular parasites of animals and protists, are fairly recent and highly derived endobiotic fungi (living within the tissue of another species)," I do not feel confident in the source verifying that information. I believe that it is cited to the sentence inappropriately. (the only lines that come close is the the section starting with "Early phylogenetic studies, using sequences of microsporidial 18S rDNA [50], EF-1α and EF-2 [51,52] also seemed consistent with a very early divergence of this taxon." and ending with "The results we have obtained show definitively that Microsporidia occupy a phylogenetic position outside Kingdom Fungi." This would mean that they are -not- Fungi at all).

4. Also cited for the above paragraph is this, but the source contradicts any certainty in the sentence: "but the nature of the microsporidian–fungal relationship has yet to be determined"

- There are other problems, but the sources are difficult to attain and the technical terms used are giving me a headache. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi OR, thanks for joining the fungus party! I have made a series of edits which I hope will address some of your concerns. Specifically, I read through the article again and added several references to support sentences that might have been considered "weaselly", or reworded them to sound less so. I've added some citations to end-of-paragraph sentences, and the ones that remain uncited are those I think are non-contentious, or common-knowledge (IMO); please let me know of any specific instances where you disagree. Re: (1) the source was given to support the latter part of that sentence; I have now added another source for the production of acids (didn't think it was necessary to give a source for fungi making antibiotics). Re: (2) I've added more citations to the paragraph on the ascomycota. Re: (3) and (4) Very nice analysis, I overlooked this previously. I have now refactored that statement to clarify the uncertainty about the phylogenetic placement of the Microsporidia, and rearranged the citations to that effect. Please let us know about anything else you think needs improvement. Sasata (talk) 09:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note to the FA director: All my comments above have been resolved nicely. Just clarifying as the threads above have become a little interwoven and messy. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• What is so special about Fungi in California that warrants an external link but can't be included in the article (See WP:EL). Also, is the {{main}} template used correctly everywhere? Main is used when this article is a summary of that article; otherwise, seealso or further or another template should be used. Citations go after punctuation except for dashes (see WP:FN). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The Fungi in California link was non-essential, so I removed it. I've replaced all of the "Main" templates with either "See also" or wikilinks. I couldn't find any other misplaced puncs; I assume you fixed the one offender. Sasata (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

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