Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russula virescens/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 Ian Rose 10:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Russula virescens edit

Russula virescens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russula virescens is widely considered the best edible mushroom of the large genus Russula, and is popular in Europe in Asia. I have exhausted my sources and tweaked the prose to the point of diminishing returns, and think the article is ready for FAC. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sasata. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is especially popular in Europe and Asia. — ie the half of the world where it is easy to identify. A little sweeping, I think; perhaps change to Spain and China?
  • Mushrooms have a high water content — for me, this doesn't quite work, going from the specific to the general. Not a deal-breaker if you want to keep it
  • The green color of the cuticle — "color" is redundant here
  • and in deposit — I don't know what this means
  • its color tends to be more bluish-green — it tends to be more bluish-green
  • Russula virescens has a low capacity (x2) — "limited" might be better
  • Ref 14 needs publisher location
  • I'm happy with your amendments, can't see anything else, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great to see a quality article on such an important species.

  • "First described in 1774 by Jacob Christian Schaeffer, the distribution of Russula virescens encompasses" This reads as if the distribution was first described by Schaeffer
  • "around the center; the distinct pattern is called areolate." Seeing as areolate is an adjective, perhaps "called" isn't the right word?
  • Reworded to "with patches of the same color dispersed radially around the center in an areolate pattern." Sasata (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to say that the apparent controversy concerning its appearance in North America is not quite made clear in the lead; I got the impression it was clear that it's found there, it's just not precisely clear where, while the article body implies it may not be there at all.
  • I've now made this more explicit in the lead. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link cholesterol?

Not seeing a lot of problems! J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images seem OK (I don't really feel qualified to judge File:Stamp of Moldova 238.gif) but I'm finding myself slightly under-inspired by the photos; especially the lead, which seems to have been taken in less-than-ideal lighting. Although they're only small mushrooms, I'd be inclined to say that this or this capture the "ickyness" that Antonio Carluccio alludes to. If you're not convinced, stick with those we've got; I just imaging that choosing the right picture could make the difference as to whether someone stays to read the article or not! J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, I like the lead image in that it nicely shows the areolate pattern, and a sunken cap center that is mentioned in the description. I've deliberately avoided using images from North America for reasons described above. What do you think about this, this, or this as alternate lead images? Sasata (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Choosing the right image out of all those is tricky. The depressed centre, which is a feature of the mushroom, is really only visible in the current one, which I think is the best really. this one is ok but the mushroom is a bit dirty, this one you can see the depression but it's a really odd shape. Tough call....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to trust your judgement call. Two images in the infobox would also not be out of the question, if they show different features/show the mushroom at different stages of life? J Milburn (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another option to fit in an extra picture would be to convert the quote box in the edibility section to a block quote and add one of these images with a context-suitable caption like "Despite its "moldy" appearance, R. virescens is a good edible." How does that sound? Sasata (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I have your attention, I'm thinking about replacing the spore image with this, as perhaps a picture of a young, not-yet green specimen is more useful than one of the spores. Comments? Sasata (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the quote-box move; something between a quotebox and a blockquote is Template:Quotation, which I rather like and would probably look good here. I agree that a young mushroom pic would be nice, but I'm also a big fan of spore pictures. Frankly, I think the least useful picture is the stamp, so if something's going to go... (An alternative to the stamp pic would be an external link to something like this, perhaps even using Template:External image. I also note that Moldova seems to have released a lot of stamps with mushrooms- I wonder if there's any literature out there about the meeting of mycology and philately? That'd make a fun article...) J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented your suggestions with this edit, what do you think? I think there is enough literature to make a "Fungi on stamps" page; there's a series of articles by Maurice Moss in the journals Mycologist, Bulletin of the British Mycological Society and Transactions of the British Mycological Society Sasata (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a little jiggling- revert if you like. I'm just worried that some would see the article as a little crowded; I'm sure there's a solution that hasn't occurred to us... J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose and comprehensiveness Comments from Cwmhiraeth - Generally looks good. A few points that struck me:-
  • I think you could wikilink polymath, clade, mycologist
  • Clade was already linked, but linked the other two. Sasata (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a molecular phylogenetic analysis of European Russula, R. virescens grouped together in a clade with R. mustelina;" - I don't think this sentence has a main verb.
  • Well I think it is awkward and that "formed a clade with ..." would be preferable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Description section, I favour conversion measurements that reflect the accuracy of the original. Thus "up to 15 cm" should convert to 6 rather than 5.9 in. This type of over-accurate conversion also occurs in the lead section.
  • I did a bit of rounding off where appropriate, but kept the conversion of 4 cm = 1.6 inches (neither 1 inch nor 2 inches would accurately reflect the original measurement). Sasata (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...most of the gill is fused..." - I would say "most of the gills are fused" but would defer to your better knowledge of technical terms.
  • "Another green-capped Russula is ... Other green russulas" - Some inconsistency in capitalisation and italics?
  • This is the correct way to refer to generic names in singular (with italics) and plural (without italics) forms. Sasata (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite its "moldy" appearance, R. virescens is a good edible." - This image caption needs attention.
  • I think the caption was technically ok, but added "mushroom" at the end, as using "edible" as a noun rather than an adjective probably sounds jarring to the non-mycophile (assuming this is what you thought the issue was?). Sasata (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...reactive brilliant blue and reactive blue R." - It is a bit unfortunate that this sentence ends in "R." as you have been using this abbreviation throughout for "Russula".
  • I've removed it, as it is chemically quite similar to reactive brilliant blue and there's no need to mention both. Sasata (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting. I'm on vacation with poor Internet access, so will address these early next week. Sasata (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, real life delays made it take longer than expected to reply, but I think I've addressed your suggestions now. Sasata (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with your responses and think the article is of a high enough standard to be a Featured Article. Changed my "Comments" to "Support". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2013 (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/Russula_virescens/archive1&oldid=1046369931"