Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mycena haematopus/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 21:05, 8 May 2010 [1].

Mycena haematopus edit

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mycena haematopus is an common, widespread, attractive mushroom well-known for "bleeding" a blood-red latex when cut or injured. I think the article does a good job in covering the available literature on the species, and a number of editors have helped refine the prose. Thanks for looking. (This is a WikiCup nomination) Sasata (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Images are fine, no dab links, no dead external links. ~~What makes "A key to the Mycenas of Norway" [2], "California Fungi" [3], and "Fungi on Wood" [4] reliable sources?~~ Ucucha 16:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "A key to the Mycenas of Norway" is maintained by Arne Aronsen, who has authored a number of papers about Mycena species (I find eight with the ISI Web of Knowledge), so I consider him an "expert". His site uses all the current literature for his species description (see here). The other two probably don't quite measure up to FAC standards, so I will replace those citations shortly and leave them as external links. Sasata (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources now swapped. Sasata (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sources looking good now. Ucucha 17:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~, Usual polished effort, but some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

saprobe — I know it’s linked, but in the opening para a gloss might be good

Done. Sasata (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4 cm (1.6 in) broad — I’d expect "wide". Is this an AE thing?

I've seen "broad", "in diameter", and "wide" used interchangably in the literature to described cap width. But I think I like wide better, so I've changed it. Sasata (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is wavy like the edge of a scallop— "scalloped"?

I used "scalloped" in the lead, but I like the extra descriptive words in the Description section, so I left it as is. Sasata (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are amyloid, so they will absorb iodine when stained with Melzer's reagent. — Makes it sound like cause and effect, perhaps “meaning“ instead of “so“

Done. Sasata (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*33–60 (sometimes up to 80) by 9–12 µm. — Units a long way from first number, is it worth putting µm after 60 and 80 too?

Added the unit after 60. Sasata (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edibility — mention in lead?

Good idea, done. Sasata (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haematopodin formula would be nice, but unless you're better than me at this stuff, don’t bother, it’s too much work

Another good idea. My regular go-to guy for drawing chemical structures isn't around much now, but I'll see if there's someone else who can whip up a structure for me. Sasata (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Thanks to the quick chem-drawing skills of Rifleman 82, the article now has the structure of haematopodin. Sasata (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last doi isn’t working

And I don't know why that is. I have removed it, since the page it's supposed to lead to doesn't have an abstract, so it's not terribly useful. Thanks for the helpful comments. Sasata (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All issues resolved, I like the chem image, and this looks really tasty (: Changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made a few copyediting tweaks, all minor. This looks great! Maralia (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kindly for the c-e & support. Sasata (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very accessible and well-done article. Karanacs (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sasata (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please have someone review the images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did (see first comment). I may, of course, have missed issues a better image reviewer would have noticed. Ucucha 21:16, 8 May 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.