Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geastrum quadrifidum/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 18:47, 30 September 2010 [1].

Geastrum quadrifidum edit

Geastrum quadrifidum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiking through the bush of northern Saskatchewan this summer, I was very pleasantly surprised to find a cluster of earthstar fungi growing on a rotting log—the lead image shows the beauties in their natural state only moments after I saw them. Further examination revealed that it was a species new to me, and when I returned home I started researching. This article is a result of those efforts. I believe that in terms of quality and adherence to the FA criteria, it compares with the other earthstar FA, Geastrum triplex. Thanks to Rcej for the GA review and copyedit. Sasata (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is clearly an excellent article. Malleus Fatuorum 16:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much, Malleus. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From me-

  • "the gleba—fertile" Why italics? And do we not have an article to link to that talks about gleba?
  • "usually taller than wide" than it is wide?
  • Category:Fungi of South America and Category:Fungi of Africa? Perhaps specify Australasia or Oceania in the lead instead of "Australia"?
  • The short paragraphs in Distribution and habitat make it look a little underdeveloped.
  • First paragraph of microscopic characteristics lacks a cite
  • In the lead, you mention that it "spends most of its life as thin strands of mycelium" (and mentioned mycelium a couple of lines later) but don't really go into that in the article body. A little more on ecology would be good.

Generally looking great. Research, sourcing and writing all top-notch as usual. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hope I have addressed all your suggestions with this edit, JM. Thanks for reviewing. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, wonderful. As has been said, this is particularly well illustrated. (Possible COI- WP:FUNGI, WP:CUP, worked together on numerous articles, GA reviews and such.) J Milburn (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fortunately, this was also available at Google Books, so I've replaced the link. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: Very nice and clear pictures, and all appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Attracted by the pretty images, I found the article to be well-structured and concise; I believe the article presents a fairly clear description of the fungi to a layman. Jappalang (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for checking images and the support! Sasata (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ucucha

  • "the epithet coronatus is not to be used because of the existence of the sanctioned name"—instead of a reference directly to the Code, could you cite this to a source that directly addresses this issue?
  • Replaced a reference that got removed yesterday. Sasata (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "within taxonomical terminology, this usage is an auctorum non"—if you declare that a name is misapplied, you really need a citation.
  • Moved the previous citation forward to cover this. Sasata (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does pseudoparenchyma merit a link? (It would be great to have more articles that use the word "pseudoparenchymatous").
  • Hmm, seems more like a dicdef to me... maybe a wiktionary entry (I'd have to figure out how to do that) or a subsection in parenchyma? Sasata (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure—if it's a structure that occurs often in fungi, it may merit its own article; otherwise just let it be. Ucucha 20:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sometimes greenish due to algae"—is that a symbiotic association?
  • Not that I'm aware; some fungi just seems to attract algal growth for whatever reason. Sasata (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ranging from roughly spherical to somewhat egg-shaped, to more or less irregularly shaped"—what about "ranging from roughly spherical to egg-shaped or irregular"?
  • "smokey"—not "smoky"?
  • "The basidia of G. quadrifidum have a basal clamp connection or narrow into a hyphal part ending at a clamp, when young more or less ellipsoid to club-shaped, in age often becoming more or less bottle-shaped, ampullaceous or sometimes almost lecythiform but other shapes occur, as mature (hyphal part excluded) 14–21 x 4.5–7 µm."—run-on sentence; please split
  • "The outer part (the mycelial cup) consists of thick-walled (often with a narrow lumen), 1.5–4 µm wide, with branched and densely interwoven hyphae."—thick-walled what?
  • Don't you usually have "Similar species" as a subsection of "Description"?
  • I usually do, but this section is longer than most SS sections in other articles, so I though it'd be ok to have it separate (and it gave me more room to fit in those images). Sasata (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Geastrum minimum, although similarly diminutive"—that is, as small as G. quadrifidum? In context, it sounds like you're comparing it with G. fornicatum.
  • Any idea what the South American countries are where it's been found?
  • Sunhede doesn't give any more details, and further search didn't reveal anything. Sasata (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Montenegro and Denmark aren't listed among the countries where it has been found, but if it is on their regional Red Lists, that would imply it does occur there.
  • "In Britain, all collections have been made in beech forest on calcareous soil."—previous para doesn't mention any collections in the UK.
  • Images look good.
  • Scopoli (1771): is there no online version? Publisher, language, page?

Ucucha 13:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the careful review and copyedit, and for translating all those Latin titles!
You're welcome; one more point:
  • "The sterigmata (thin projections of the basidia that attach the spore)"—shouldn't this be "that attach to the spore" or something similar? Ucucha 20:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support nice pictures, meets FA criteria. Dincher (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment beginning a look through now - will jot notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a link for 'weft' (I confess I have never heard that word before about 30 seconds ago....)
  • Well, neither had I until I worked on this article, so I guess I shouldn't assume regular readers will know the word. Have replaced with "flat mat" to better match with the description later. Sasata (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would be nice to have a stub or some blue thing to link for thorn forest, sounds like an intriguing term and I'd do it mysellf but am short on time today.
  • Stub made. Thanks for reading! Sasata (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, we're pretty much there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 30 September 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/Geastrum_quadrifidum/archive1&oldid=388037615"