Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dendrocollybia/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 21:04, 14 November 2010 [1].

Dendrocollybia

Featured article candidates/Dendrocollybia/archive1

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The branched shanklet, Dendrocollybia racemosa, grows on the rotting remains of dead mushrooms. It is the only mushroom that produces little branches along the length of its stem; these outgrowths have minute drops of slime that contain asexual spores called conidia. This adaptation allows it to reproduce sexually via spores produced on gills, or asexually via the conidia. Clever or what? I think the article meets the FAC criteria, and welcome any suggestions for improvement you may have. Sasata (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no dab links, no dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images All the images have acceptable licences, but the images illustrating the spore shapes are problematic. Whilst you might just get away with the ellipsoid in the absence of a free image of a spore, I don't think that Common Blackbird egg is an appropriate substitute for an ovoid spore. I think you need either to create an ovoid to match the style of the ellipsoid, or, preferably, remove both the unnecessary shape images Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~Comments~~ A few queries Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Taxonomy — two consecutive sentences begin with "Based on..."~~
~~adnexed — link to wikitionary means you have to click through, not just hover. Can you gloss the term please~~
16–20 long by 3.5–4 µm wide — I'd remove "long" and "wide" for consistency with the other measurements in this section. If you keep the extra words, I think you need to repeat the units after "16–20"
A number of your refs have retrieval dates for on-line copies of real journals and book. Dates are only required for web-only sources

I've fixed all above. I'm still a bit confused about retrieval dates for "web-only" sources. If a source is a PDF that is found only on the web, is that web-only? Part of my confusion stems from the documentation for template:cite journal, which has a parameter for adding an accessdate for any external link, and it does not make a distinction between web-only (does web-only mean the document is in HTML?), or other documents available on the web (like Google Books links, or scans of journal articles). Is this inconsistent with the MOS "For web-only sources with no publication date you should include a "Retrieved" date instead, in case the webpage changes in the future."? That MOS page does not (as far as I can see) state that one should not include access dates for other web-based documents. Any clarification would be appreciated. Sasata (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me, if you are using template:cite journal or template:cite book, the access date parameter shouldn't be used, even though it's available, because by definition a hard copy publication exists (doesn't matter if the on-line version is pdf or html). It's certainly the case that FACs normally only date template:cite web or its equivalents. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Oh, look! A fungus! (snickers)
~~We've discussed http://www.mushroomexpert.com/index.html before, correct? Did we find stuff showing reliability?~~

We've discussed here, here, and here. Kuo is a published author (has written several popular mushroom books), and in at least one instance I know of in a peer-reviewed journal. Admittedly, he is an English teacher, not a mycologist. Sasata (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sources seem to be comprehensively covered; no other problems left. Ucucha 02:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Comments from Ucucha:[reply]

~~Could the cladogram include some more of the related genera? As it is, it doesn't really show why Dendrocollybia was raised to generic rank.~~

This one is difficult: the cladogram I've drawn is a simplified version of the consensus tree obtained for the four (3+1 former) Collybia species; they tested several specimens from various geographic locations, and I reduced them to single branches. In the paper, they have a separate, larger tree with a greater sampling of species from the Lyophyllum clade, but it doesn't emphasize the clear relationship between the four species as well. Am open to suggestions on how to improve this. I did, however, add the sentence "They were not able to recover a monophyletic clade that included all four species of Collybia." to clarify why they decided to split off Dendrocollybia. Sasata (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the relationships among the three remaining Collybia species are of much relevance to this article; it's more important to show that they recovered Clitocybe connata sister to this fungus. Ucucha 22:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm convinced, added a new cladogram. Whaddya think? Sasata (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good, thanks. Ucucha 02:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~What makes that Gray quote so particularly insightful that it needs to be shown in a big bold italic box?~~

I put it in more for flavor than insight. Didn't really seem to fit in the description as a quote, but I thought it was an interesting add-on. Will remove if consensus dictates, but I'll shed a tear. Sasata (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the bold-italic to make it a little less big; no real problem with it now. Ucucha 22:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In contrast to the three species of Collybia,^[1] D. racemosa is "almost completely unreactive" to common chemical tests used in mushroom identification, including aniline, alpha-napthol, guaiacol, sulfoformol, phenol, and phenol-aniline.^[2]"—does that fit under "Microscopic characteristics"?

I've cordoned off that sentence and the following paragraph into a "Similar species" subsection, does that work? Sasata (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~When was Dendrocollybia made a genus?~~

2001, added. Sasata (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I guess the "Dendro-" part refers to the branches on the stem; do the sources explicitly make that point?~~

Ucucha 21:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no. Sasata (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I see this was also mentioned in the GA review, but are there no further details on distribution? Ucucha 21:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Since the GA review I've explicitly mentioned "The fungus is widely distributed in temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere", ~~but cannot find anything more detailed than that~~, but no evidence that it is in the Southern Hemisphere. Thanks for the comments. Sasata (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Northern Hemisphere is a big place, though: how far north does it occur? Has it been found in North Africa, Japan, China, Europe, Mexico? Ucucha 22:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NA distribution was already given; I've added some more details about European distribution. It's probably in more European countries, but I don't have access to highly specialized regional distribution literature, and the websites that have snippets of this information aren't reliable enough to use here. No indication of it being in Africa or Asia. Have also revised a lead a bit to summarize distribution better. Sasata (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry for missing the piece about the NA distribution. I guess it has the reverse of the classic eastern Asian–eastern North American distribution. Ucucha 02:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from J Milburn

Comments from J Milburn-

Perhaps it would be worth specifying in the caption of the lead image precisely what we're looking at? At first I thought it was just the branches, not the mushrooms- I'm assuming the brown matter they're growing from is a former mushroom?

Caption now more descriptive. Sasata (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"although neither his suggested binomial change nor vernacular name "racemelike high-stool" were adopted in subsequent publications." Ref? I appreciate it's hard to reference something like that; perhaps it would be best to say "was not adopted in x work" or something? It really catches my eye when there's no ref at the end of a paragraph.

Yeah, it was one of those "obvious, but OR" things; I shifted it around so it's properly sourced without losing any info. Sasata (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God, I'm glad Umbo (mycology) finally got written... Hadn't noticed that until now.

You're welcome :) Sasata (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"inward against the gills" towards the gills would be better?

Sure, done. Sasata (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"lamellulae" Why italics?

I think this qualifies as an example of words as words. Sasata (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"From Das System der Pilze und Schwämme (1816)" Who drew it? Or whose book is it?

Christian Gottfried Daniel Nees von Esenbeck, now mentioned. Sasata (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"structures called conidia." You've already introduced us to conidia

Removed "structure called" Sasata (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"fruiting on the fruit" repetition

Reworded. Sasata (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Dendrocollybia is one of four agaric genera obligately associated with growth on the fruit bodies of other fungi, the other being Squamanita, Asterophora, and Collybia.[4]" Seems to be out on its own- perhaps merge with similar species, or merge with one of the previous paragraphs?

Fit it in after the mention of saprobism at the beginning of the section. Sasata (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"confirmed Russula crassotunicata as a host for the species." Why do we care about this particular species? You've already specified that it occurs on Lactarius and Russula

Before the publication of this paper, the hosts were only assumed to be Lactarius and Russula, this publication proves it. I think it would be remiss if I didn't mention it. (And, it allows me to justify including a picture of the host) Sasata (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could spell out the way it feeds a little more explicitly? Even if it's just defining "saprobic"? It's pretty damn interesting, and I think a lot of casual readers would miss it.

Added a definition, and moved that other stray sentence nearby. Sasata (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally looking lovely. J Milburn (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, JM! Sasata (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, another great one. I still think the Russula crassotunicata issue is a little weird- perhaps clarify what you said to me in the article or something, but I am happy to trust your judgement on the issue. J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. I added a little more about the Russula host. Sasata (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – From Taxonomy and phylogeny: "Hughes and colleagues were not able to recover a clade that included all four species of Collybia." Unless I missed something (a distinct possibility), I don't see Hughes' first name given anywhere in the article. If it isn't in already, it probably should be. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's Karen; I added her first name. Ucucha 00:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was reduced to very minor tweaks. good to go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support~~Comments~~ on the phylogenetic analysis section. I'm not sure what is meant by "well-supported" in reference to a monophyletic group. Similarly, I find "recover a clade" a little odd. Does it mean "discover" a clade or "identify" a clade. I see the Hughes paper mentions the use of restriction fragment length polymorphisms, I quote: "Simple diagnostic RFLP patterns were identified for the four species and were used to validate morphological designations and distributions." Would it be useful to mention this in the article? Graham Colm (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the sentence "Restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of the ribosomal DNA from the four species corroborated the results obtained from phylogenetic analysis.", and also swapped "identify" for "recover". "Well-supported" means a high bootstrap value, which implies that the data set was sampled many times in the analysis, and the same clade kept reappearing. It's standard jargon in phylogenetics, but I'm receptive to ideas on how to change the wording to make it more friendly. Sasata (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought bootstrapping might be the answer ;) How about saying "repeatedly showed" and deleting "well-supported". Just a suggestion. You will have noticed that I have added my support—another engaging and well-written contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it some more, I just removed "well-supported" for simplicity. Most casual readers won't notice the difference, and the few that are wondering about the statistical validity of the phylogenetic analysis will also have the know-how to check out the original publication for themselves :) Thanks for the support. Sasata (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that anyone has spotchecked sources for WP:V and [WP:COPYVIO]]; I'd like to see that done at least once for every frequent nominator, so someone get after it on the next one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 14 November 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.

^ Cite error: The named reference Hughes2001 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Cite error: The named reference Lennox1979 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Hughes2001-1] Cite error: The named reference Hughes2001 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[Lennox1979-2] Cite error: The named reference Lennox1979 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]