Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Clathrus ruber/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 Laser brain 01:37, 23 February 2011 [1].

Clathrus ruber edit

Clathrus ruber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "red cage" mushroom Clathrus crispus is an exotic-looking but not uncommon species that has been described as resembling "an alien from a science fiction horror film". In addition to its striking appearance, it has a ghastly, odious stench—similar to rotting flesh—with which it attracts insects to disperse the spores contained in the green slime that covers its inner surface. I think the article is ready for appraisal and will quickly respond to your suggestions for improvements. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—all comments addressed, appears comprehensive (though I'm surprised there is so little ecological information), and it looks kind of neat. Ucucha 18:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

  • I don't like the "08-2006" date for the citations to Kuo's web pages (current refs. 30 and 31); why not use "August 2006"?
  • The following paper appears to have an Argentinian record:

Title: Gasteromycetes (Eumycota) from central and western Argentina: II. Order Phallales Author(s): De Toledo, Laura Dominguez Source: Darwiniana (San Isidro) Volume: 33 Issue: 0 Pages: 195-210 Published: 1995

Ucucha 17:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed date format; added Argentinian record. Thanks! Sasata (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 20:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few comments from SmartSE (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been introduced to many areas" (in the lead) is a little bit weasely, can this be changed? Maybe "many" > "other" or add more countries.
  • In general the lead seems a bit short - should some mention of folklore, ecology and biochemistry be included?
  • Have now added a bit about all of them. Sasata (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Dring give a date for when Ciro Pollini found it growing on the skull?
  • Based on Pollini's publication history, I assume it's early 1800s, but Dring doesn't say (nor give a direct citation). Sasata (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "placenta-like" function in the biochemistry section is a bit strange - can you qualify what the authors meant by this?
  • Expanded this part a bit and hopefully clarified. Sasata (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it help readers if you point out the pigments are the same as in carrots and tomatoes?
  • Other than that, it looks very good - nice photos!
  • Yes, it's a cool-looking creature. I hope to see one someday... standing downwind of course! Sasata (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that has been addressed. I've done some searching and found a few extra possible sources:
    • This mentions plates drawn by Cassiano dal Pozzo who isn't mentioned in the article yet. I can access a copy, I'm not sure about copying from it though...
      • I do have mentions of two earlier illustrations in the article (1597 and 1601). Being such an oddball mushroom, it was quite popular with illustrators, but I'm not sure adding mention of another historical drawing will add much (open to being persuaded otherwise, though). Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I guess it's a toss up between the earlier illustrations and then the scientfic description. The same review mentions that the book also has descrpitions of fungi by Federico Cesi though which might be cool to add. I'll try to find out how difficult it is to access a copy of it. SmartSE (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Changed my mind, I've added a mention of his illustration now. Did you know this book (Pegler and Freedberg, 2006) costs $416 through Amazon (and only twice that price if you buy it used!). Sasata (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Cheers. Yeah I did notice the exorbitant price... not one to keep in your personal library! I didn't manage to make it to the library either unfortunately. Just one tiny thing - should you reference the review of the book, as well as the actual book, since that is where the information came from? SmartSE (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • In this particular instance, I don't think it's necessary. It's as if I called up a librarian and asked them to look something up for me from a reliable source, or if I used an abstract from a scholarly database—although I didn't see the source material myself, a trusted intermediate relayed the information for me; I think a similar reasoning applies here (I'd have a different opinion if the material was contentious or likely to be challenged, but that doesn't apply here.) Sasata (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a record from Ireland - not sure if it will contain anything of use as I can't read it.
      • I can't access it either, but I do have Ireland mentioned in the distribution already, with a source from a couple of years after this publication. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has a mention of it and might be interesting considering the odour issues.
      • The article state that C. ruber was one the species analysed using solvent extraction, but it doesn't appear to be listed in table 2. This is not surprising, as all of the terpenes listed in that table are associated with "pleasant" odors... they probably didn't find any in our fungus! Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This mentions that Conrad Gesner mistook it for an aquatic organism!
    • This is a molecular phylogeny of another group, but makes a mention of it - may just be a passing one.
      • Yeah, it was mostly used as a somewhat related species in a phylogenetic analysis to show that Ramaria classification is all messed up. The Phylogenetics study that's currently discussed in the article is more recent and germane. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no explicit mention of Spain in the distribution, but this and this could be used (the second is actually Mallorca).
      • I think (hope) I've made it pretty clear about the southern/central European distribution of the species (with a general secondary source that covers this); I'm reluctant to add specific citations for any one country in this region, as then all the other Euro countries would want cites too :) Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I get your point, it's just not particularly clear where it is found, but maybe that's just me. The numerous UK locations make it seem a bit unbalanced though. Is there any chance of a distribution map with separate colours for the natural and introduced ranges? SmartSE (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've reorganized this section so that the natural and introduced distributions are more or less in different paragraphs. About a distribution map, I think this would be difficult, and veer into OR territoy; for example, if the species has been reported once in a country do I use a dot to pinpoint the collection location, or shade in the whole country? Do I have to find every collection record that's been published to make the map complete? It would be easier if someone else had published one that I could copy (I haven't seen one), or if its distribution was much more localized. Sasata (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hmm, I guess I hadn't considered that problem and now you mention it I don't think it is possible to make a map. The section reads more clearly than before though so we can make do without it. SmartSE (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This again makes a mention - might be something worth using in ecology.
      • I had looked at this one, but after reading the paper I decided I couldn't make a useful general statement about the results without delving into OR. C. ruber was only found three times in the thousands of collections that were made, and the authors themselves didn't come to any conclusions about the influence of canopy cover to fruit body appearance that was specific to this species. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an Austrian paper - may not be anything new though.
      • Covered under European distribution above. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Found in Turkey.
  • Oops - that turned into more than a few, but that's all the google scholar hits looked at now. SmartSE (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments and the lit search Smartse, I appreciate it. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No probs, almost ready to run the gauntlet myself. SmartSE (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support meets all the criteria AFAICT. SmartSE (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Earwig`s tool found no copyvio, a few spotchecks found no close paraphrasing (although I can`t read Latin or Spanish or German or Italian or Dutch or Ukrainian or Japanese)
  • ″Cambridge at the University Press″ - source gives publisher as Cambridge University Press
  • Ref 16 - needs retrieval date
    • This is a PDF document, so does not need a retrieval date (or so I've been told at other FACs). Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 22 - should likely include mykoweb as publisher
  • Be more consistent on when you include state or country names for publishers - New York, New York vs just Boston, Cambridge, UK vs just Kew are examples
  • Be more consistent on when you include retrieval dates for print-based sources
    • Normally, I try to be, really :) I removed one that shouldn't have been there. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kew Bulletin refs - check volume and issue numbers (vol 1953 in 1954 vs vol 10 in 1955)
    • Argh... fail on that one. Fixed. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources appear reliable, although I can`t judge breadth or comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for your thorough check! Sasata (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is an image copyright check by Stifle.
  • All images on the article are freely licensed or PD. Well done! Stifle (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support - beginning a look-through now...notes below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
feeding off decaying woody or plant organic matter - I took a double take after reading "plant organic matter" - I'd suspect "organic" is redundant here. What about just "feeding off decaying woody or (other) plant material"?
  • Agree, have removed the redundancy. Sasata (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
C. ruber was not regarded highly in southern European folklore, which suggested that those who handled the mushroom risked contracting various ailments. - I find this construction a little odd WRT folklore being the agent of the subsequent clause - it'd be more tales in folklore rather than folklore itself (not a deal-breaker as others aren't fussed I see though)
  • Added "tales in" as suggested. Sasata (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fetid odor—described as resembling rotting meat—attracts flies, other insects - you've got "fetid" and "putrid" in quick succession. I'd think about folding one in, so either "Described as resembling rotting meat, the odor attracts flies, other insects" or "People's reaction to the (putrid) odor has been well-documented" - or something. Anyway, just have a play with it.
  • Good catch, removed the first fetid. Sasata (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why Clathrus archeri is Anthurus archeri, in taxo section?
  • Oversight on my part, didn't notice the source was using an older synonym. Have changed to Clathrus. Sasata (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking good to go...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 20 February 2011 (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/Clathrus_ruber/archive1&oldid=940654020"