Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Morchella rufobrunnea/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 12:29, 14 May 2014 [1].

Morchella rufobrunnea edit

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Morchella rufobrunnea is a choice edible fungus, and one of the few morel species that has been successfully cultivated. The article is fairly short, but I think is comprehensive for a species that was "officially" described only in 1998. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage edit

I love seeing your mushroom articles, and I'm happy to lend a hand reviewing this one. I normally focus on reference minutiae, but with how many of these you've written, I know I'd be in for a short review if that's all I did, so I'll aim for a more comprehensive one:

  • I know "new to science" is a term of art, and all, but it is probably jarring to the lay reader here, since it wasn't exactly discovered in 1998 so much as differentiated. Doubly so since the lead mentions a cultivation patent that was seemingly issued before anyone knew the mushroom existed! (Yes, obviously, that's not really how it worked, but it does rather read that way.)
  • I think I've fixed these issues. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps re-order the Taxonomy section likewise? Introduce the 1986 mentions of western deliciosa first, then walk through the sequence of establishing rufobrunnea in 1998 and moving the existing mushrooms over to the new name?
  • I like the order as it is currently written, so am hesitant to change unless there's a consensus that it really would be better the other way. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "North American morels formerly classified as deliciosa have since been divided into two distinct species, Morchella diminutiva and M. virginiana." Should that say "Other North American morels..." since rufobrunnea started its taxonomic voyage there also?
  • Any details on what form of molecular analysis was used? I feel like I'm being picky asking, but I know it's been included in several other mushroom FAs (and was specifically requested by someone during mine).
  • Must have been a clever fellow! I've added these details. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I know your clades aren't consistently capitalized: Esculenta clade vs. Elata Clade. Later, you have "Blushing Clade" in caps, with quotes, and I'm not sure what the distinction is there, either.
  • I've now made the clade names capitalized, and the word "clade" not. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my mind about this, and now have clade names uncapitalized (see reply to Caliber below). Sasata (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything comment on what the black granules are? Or are they just a thing it does?
  • Have looked for additional details, but have not found anything. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link hyphae?
  • Link sclerotia under Description (instead of first linking it down in Cultivation)?
  • Anything describe characteristics that distinguish rufobrunnea from the (now) two other species that all used to be part of North American deliciosa for the Similar Species section?
  • Added some details about these species. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link pre-apothecia to something?
  • Rephrased to the less jargony "immature caps". Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give a development process with four steps, then one with five steps. I assume the difference is the conditions involved, but it makes the section less than clear overall.
  • This section has been reorganized for clarity. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • References and reference formatting look pretty solid. Should the Stamets ref read "3rd ed." instead of "3 ed."? (I'm contractually obligated to find a nit to pick in reference formatting...).

Can't quite endorse promotion yet, but I have no doubts that the article will be there in short order. As always, nice work. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from J Milburn
  • "Its known range was extended a decade later when a study determined that it was common in the West Coast of the United States, and in 2009, when it was reported growing in Israel." How about "Its range was later found to be more widely spread, when a study determined that it was common in the West Coast of the United States a decade later, and when it was reported growing in Israel in 2009." Extending the "known range" seems a little clumsy.
  • For the length of the article (and aesthetically) I feel two paragraphs of lead would be best.
  • Lead split (and slightly expanded). Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a process to cultivate M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s." How about "a process to cultivate morels now known to be M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s." or "a process to cultivate morels, including the since-described M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s." or something similar?
  • Changed to something similar. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a 2008 study by Michael Kuo, he determined" The study is the subject of the sentence, not Kuo. How about "In a 2008 study, Michael Kuo determined" or "In a 2008 study by Michael Kuo, it was determined"
  • So the name Morchella deliciosa is no longer used at all? It's used elsewhere on Wikipedia, but has no article
  • It's still used, but should only be applied to European specimens. Have made a stub. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although most are typically found in the narrower range, 9.0–15.5 cm (3.5–6.1 in)" Should be "although most are typically found in a narrower range, 9.0–15.5 cm (3.5–6.1 in)" or "although most are typically found in the narrower range of 9.0–15.5 cm (3.5–6.1 in)"
  • You don't link "sclerotia" at the first mention (though I'd recommend keeping it linked at the second
  • Not the end of the world if you don't have them, but do you have any information about differentiating this one from similar species in the US? M. deliciosa used by western American authors.[4] North American morels formerly classified as deliciosa (deliciosa? diminutiva? virginiana?) Was there anything about similar morels in the Israel paper?
  • US, USA or United States?
  • "Unlike the North American version that fruits for only a few weeks in the spring" This is contrary to what was said in the previous paragraph

Very strong article. J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images mostly good, but the source link on File:Morchella rufobrunnea 11174.jpg seems to be wrong. I'm also struck by what looks like atypical colouration on the lead image, but I'm happy to take your word if you're happy with it. J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've swapped this for an image of a more representative specimen that also shows the bruising reaction. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New image is good. J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick comments on the sources (no spotchecks done)- You sometimes have 1 January 2000 (patents), sometimes 2000-01-01 (retrieval date). Sometimes you have "(PDF)" before the link, sometimes afterwards. Why do you italicise "California Fungi"? These are all real nitpicks, and it's possible no change is necessary. Otherwise, all sources look reliable and appropriately formatted. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I like to have source dates & retrieval dates in different formats. "California Fungi" no longer italicized. Location of PDF is template-dependent (i.e. cite journal vs. cite report). Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both very much for your comments. I've already implemented some of the easier ones, and am pondering how to best action the others. Will post a full response soonish. Sasata (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support and comment Mostly of the usual high standard, but I have doubts about the grammar of A choice edible species, a process to cultivate morels now known to be M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s. The first phrase is obviously intended to describe the fungus, but the subject of the sentence is "A process". I can't see anything else, so I'm supporting on the basis that that sentence will be fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Jim, I've moved the mention of edibility out of that sentence to smooth the grammar. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its range was revealed to be more widely spread (??) - weird construct, why not just "Its range was revealed to be more widespread"
Done. Sasata (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"'The first scientifically described specimens of Morchella rufobrunnea were collected in June 1996 from the Ecological Institute of Xalapa and other regions in Xalapa, - I'd introduce "Xalapa" (city) with some descriptor as it is not well known - "The (southern) Mexican city of Xalapa"? or something
Now "and other regions in the southern Mexican municipality of Xalapa" Sasata (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the clades are subgeneric, should they be italicised?
I found this, which suggests that clade names should be unitalicized (to prevent confusion with traditional Latin names), and uncapitalized (which seems to align well with Wiki policies about capitalization), so I've uncapped them. Sasata (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
reddish-vinaceous - odd construction - if meaning "red to wine-red" say so, or alternately "vinaceous (wine red)"
Done (and found out we have an article for wine (color)). Sasata (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise little to complain about....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • Pls review duplinks and see if you really need them -- you have Ucucha's script?
  • I've removed two and would like to keep the two that remain. Sasata (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest it's time to ping Squeamish Ossifrage to see if he still has any concerns. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinged (although he hasn't edited since April 17). Sasata (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's been long enough and we can safely call it a day now, tks all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2014 (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/Morchella_rufobrunnea/archive1&oldid=1046369034"