Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Galerina marginata/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 04:15, 8 March 2010 [1].

Galerina marginata

edit

Galerina marginata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

This article is about a deadly poisonous mushroom. If you ever plan to walk through a forest, you owe it to yourself to read about this widely distributed and common killer. The article has been through a GA review by Ucucha, and received several helpful edits during its appearance at DYK (a rare occurrence in my experience). I think it meets the FAC criteria, and will be able to quickly address any issues that may be raised here. Thanks for looking, Sasata (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 16:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. No dab links, alt text good. Link to http://nysl.nysed.gov/Archimages/72237.PDF is dead. I believe this article likely meets all FA criteria, but will do a literature check later. Ucucha 15:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, that is gone now. You might be able to find a replacement somewhere around here. Ucucha 15:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I looked already. The document IS at the NYS library (http://www.nysl.nysed.gov/scandocs/museumbulletin.htm), but you have to use a different type of link hat cannot be deduced from the "dead" one above and the one on the page is incorrect: it's the one for the 158th bulletin. Circéus (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC) ETA: Got the right link now :D Circéus (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for your efforts! I imagine the ghostly visage of Charles Horton Peck is nodding silently in approval, as well. Sasata (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Certainly. Thanks for the fix Circeus. Ucucha 01:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking for sources in Web of Science. There are some papers that are not cited, but most don't seem to offer relevant additional information. I am listing a few that may merit inclusion in the article here. Two papers use G. marginata as a kind of model organism to compare with ectomycorrhizae; this may be worth inclusion. There is also this, a Mexican record of G. autumnalis (Distribution currently mentions North America but not explicitly Mexico). Then there is this:

  • Title: STUDIES IN THE GENUS GALERINA FROM THE SHEFFERVILLE AREA ON THE QUEBEC-LABRADOR PENINSULA, CANADA. Author(s): NOORDELOOS ME, GULDEN G. Source: PERSOONIA Volume: 14 Pages: 625-639 Part: Part 4 Published: 1992

which tells us that G. marginata (as G. unicolor) occurs in pretty cold areas. Might be worth adding. Ucucha 01:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent suggestions! I have now added all of these sources. Sasata (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comprehensive and informative, appears to meet all criteria. (Thanks for the latest additions.) Ucucha 05:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few factual issues:

  • I find "abundant" when describing cheilocystidia a bit vague... It doesn't help that "often" seems to apply to the whole enumeration there
  • I've now specified that "often" refers to the comparison with the size of the pleurocystidia. I personally don't see a problem with the word "abundant" but am open to suggestions to tweak the prose. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goof in sizes: our suspect is described as having a cap "17 to 40 cm (6.7 to 16 in) in diameter". Then how can the "6 cm (2.4 in)" cap of Kuehneromyces mutabilis be "larger"?
  • Oops - had cm where it should have been mm. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Circéus (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support—A nice piece of work. I only found a few small issues:

  • Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see an explanation of the name (or names). I think it would be a good idea to provide an English equivalent to Galerina marginata and possibly Galerina autumnalis.
    • It's covered at the end of the description section. Far as I know, Galerina English names aren't quite in wide enough use that they would warrant insertion in the lead. Circéus (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you meant etymologies of the specific epithets? I will dig around and try to find out what marginata means. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added meanings of marginata and autumnalis. Sasata (talk) 06:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that is what I meant. Sorry for the inadequate explanation.—RJH (talk)
  • It mentions in Mushrooms of the Pacific Northwest: Timber Press Field Guide that Galerina marginata has also been mistaken for the "magic mushroom" Psilocybe stuntzii, which the authors say has led to at least one death. This might be worth a mention.
    • It's briefly mentioned at the end of the "Toxicity" section about Psilocybe species in general. Dunno if they are similar enough to warrant mention in "Similar species". Circéus (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like Circeus says, the last sentence of the toxicity section does mention poisoning due to confusion with Psilocybe species, although not specifically P. stuntzii. Let me try to see if there are additional sources to corroborate the confusion with this (or any other) particular Psilocybe species and then I'll add it. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. Thanks.—RJH (talk)
          • I found a few more sources that specifically mentioned P. stuntzii, so I've added and linked it in the article. Sasata (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please clarify this statement: "...combined to inadequate sampling..." It seems to be missing a word.
  • In "A later study (2005) again failed...", 'later' and 'again' appear unnecessary/redundant.
    • Both of these looks 110% legit to me. In fact the changes you seem to be suggesting would in my opinion, make the sentences far worse than they could be. Circéus (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's ok as written... "later" refers to the fact that it's a few years after the 2001 study, and "again" because the results were similar. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 'later' is redundant because you already have a year listed. To me the 'again' just appeared additive and I thought the text would work as well without it.—RJH (talk)
        • Ok, I removed the "later" so it now reads "A 2005 study again failed...". Sasata (talk) 21:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the comments and support, and I'll address the remaining issues shortly. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The lead sections states that "about ten poisonings have been attributed to the species now grouped as G. marginata over the last century." Yet according to the "Toxicity" section ten cases were reported between 1978 and 1995 alone. Can you be certain that there aren't more cases from the last 100 years reported in literature you don't know about?
  • No I can't, but I used the phrasing "have been attributed" to imply that positive identifications were made to the Galerina species in question. The toxicity section gives a couple of suggestions as to why the reported numbers are low, including the fact that 21% of poisonings are due to unidentified species (many of which are presumably toxic Galerina). Sasata (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As the cap grows and expands, it becomes broadly convex and then flattened, sometimes developing a central elevation known as an umbo, which may project prominently from the cap surface.[11]" Umbo is a word being used as a word and should be italicized.--Carabinieri (talk) 05:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I don't understand ... aren't I using all my words as words? Sasata (talk)
  • Thanks for the link, I understand now. That's interesting, I used to italicize words in this way but in one GA review was told the practice was too confusing due to the many italicized Latin names that are usually also present in fungus articles. This is the first time this MOS point has come up in any of my FAC submissions. I think strict application of this rule will also affect several other FACs currently active. Does anyone else have any commentary about this? Sasata (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think your reasons for not italicizing are sound. However, I negated the problem by just recasting the sentence, so there are no "words as words" anymore. Any reason you're not linking umbo, by the way? The link goes to a dab page, but the fungal umbo may be worthy of an article by itself. Ucucha 15:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought it was bad form to link to a dab. Perhaps I will create umbo (fungus), it would certainly be handy. Sasata (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is, but creating the page, or even putting a red link on umbo and linking to it, would solve the problem. Ucucha 16:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Problem solved by making umbo (mycology). Sasata (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Jim. I'm happy to deal with minor issues too :) Sasata (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks ready to join the rest of the FAs to me ^_^ Circéus (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see lots of images, and some sources I'm unfamiliar with (things like mushroomexpert.com), so will need to wait for image and sources review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images. Most are from MushroomObserver and appropriately licensed; one has suitable OTRS; one is a released PD chemical structure. I am a bit concerned about File:Galerina marginata.jpg, which has a rather terse summary and does not contain a statement that the copyright holder has licensed the image into GFDL. Perhaps ask for an admin at de.wp to look whether the deleted version of the image there contained such information (or ask someone more knowledgeable with images than me whether the current summary is in fact acceptable).
  • Sources. All seem fine to me; several were also approved by Ealdgyth, grand master of reliability, in previous FACs. Ucucha 03:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, both "Tom Volk's Fungus of the Month" and "MushroomExpert.com" websites were vetted in a previous FAC here. Sasata (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The poisonous plants of NC one has not been reviewed in any previous FAC as far as I could see, but seems acceptable as it is published by established scientists on a university website. Ucucha 03:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ucucha! WIll hold on that one image, then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give me 10 minutes and I will swap out that pic for a different one... Sasata (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO hurry; I'm just starting through FAC, and am not sure if I'll finish tonight or in the morning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've swapped for an equivalent photo that appears to have straightforward Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike licensing. Sasata (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, looks good to me. Ucucha 01:55, 8 March 2010 (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/Galerina_marginata/archive1&oldid=1078799848"