Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russulaceae/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 via FACBot (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2015 [1].

Russulaceae edit

Nominator(s): Tylototriton (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a well known (among mushroom enthusiasts) family of fungi which also has considerable ecological importance. I boldly submit this as my first FAC, after expanding it over the last months, with much appreciated help from Sasata, Circeus, and Casliber, and having passed a GA review. The article draws on a wide range of different sources, most of them research articles. This is partly due to the fact that the family's taxonomy has changed a lot over the last years, which is not yet reflected in many standard mycology works and field guides. I'm looking forward to comments and critiques! Tylototriton (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (mostly) The article meets most, or all, of the criteria, depending on the way you look at it. It is certainly comprehensive, well-researched, neutral and very stable. The prose is very good, but I can't say it is exactly brilliant, as WP:FA? states. It is one of these things were I can't give examples, but is just the minute differences between choice of words and way to phrase that make all the difference between very good and purely brilliant. Gug01 (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This review is for the second set of criteria. The article has a clear and concise lead section, has appropriate structure, and has a consistent format of using footnote citations. Gug01 (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Fixed. Tylototriton (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lactarius_rubidus_spores_1000x.JPG: what is meant to be the description on the image page?
This looks like a broken template linking to the original source of the image (Mushroom Observer). I am not familiar with Commons and don't know if this can be repaired. Can anybody help? Otherwise I can replace the spore image with one of slightly lower quality, but with a good description. Tylototriton (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that (just skimming) - the template name was misspelled. GermanJoe (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Uniflora-root.jpg: do we have evidence of the listed permission? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the user that uploaded the image. Tylototriton (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had received permission via email correspondence with Martin Bidartondo (who I had also fact check the article on mycoheterotrophy when it was initially written). I never went through the formal documentation procedure, though. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, Peter G. Werner. Is this accepted as evidence? The image is surely informative, and I would like to keep it in the article. Tylototriton (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Peter, if you still have that correspondence I would suggest forwarding it to OTRS. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review The quality of refs is fine: all academic, reputable organizations, or books. However I see an inconsistency with web refs: Ref 28 doesn't have a publisher, most of them have the publisher as part of the title (which I haven't seen before so I don't know if that is or isn't allowed); as for book refs some have locations and some don't. HalfGig talk 22:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Book references now all have locations, and websites have publishers as separate parameters. Also added some English translatons of foreign titles, where helpful. Tylototriton (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk edit

  • I'm not a fungus expert, but I've reviewed a few fungus GANs, so will make some comments as a "layreader"... FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last half of the articles, there are a lot of single sentence paragraph, is it possible to merge some of these? Looks a bit fragmentary/disjointed now.
  • There are three or more "introduction" sentences in the beginning of some sections that end without citations, but they should probably have citations. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone there? FunkMonk (talk) 06:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, was offline over the weekend. I'll see how I can integrate your comments this evening – thanks anyway! Tylototriton (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merged some paragraphs in the "Chemistry" and two other small sections.
However, after reviewing, I do not see where an introductory sentence in a section would need citations. They are merely "wrappers", and the facts they contain are all backed up through citations later on in the respective section. Could you give me an example where you think a citation is necessary? Tylototriton (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in FAs, it is best to have citations after every paragraph to be safe, including "wrappers". FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really convinced; I feel citations should be used where necessary and not simply "to be safe". For me, these introductory wrappers act a bit like the lead for the whole article; the sections as a whole have references where appropriate. But I'm not a very experienced editor, if others support your view, I can add references... Tylototriton (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd do it myself. But well, let's see what do others say? You have any view on this, Casliber? FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The name Russulaceae was first validly used in 1907" I'd suggest replace "used" with "named". FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reformulated this. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "does not meet the requirements for valid publication" Why? Couldn't hurt to elaborate in a sentence.
Done. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The agaricoid species in Lactarius" Why is agaricoid italicized? It is not a genus name or foreign word.
  • Likewise for: "Laterally stiped (pleurotoid)"
  • There are more such issues in the rest of the article.
Used italics when I introduced a technical term. In that particular section, paragraphs are structured by fruitbody morphology, so I used those keywords as "anchors". IMO this improves readability. I noticed though the use of italics was not consistent in the "Chemistry" section, fixed this. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some characters of the mushroom-forming genera (marked with *) can be less obvious or absent in tropical species" Wouldn't it make more sense to explain the asterisk before the list?
It does. Rearranged the paragraphs. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is the only among the mushroom genera in Russulaceae" The only what?
The only genus. I think this is correct English, but I'm happy to reformulate if it really sounds strange. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Tropics" Why capitalisation?
Fixed. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their basal position suggests this has been the ancestral trophic mode" What basal means here may no be clear to most readers.
Changed "basal" to "early-branching". Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "subsequent authors reaffirm nevertheless that "[n]one of the corticioid species in the family shows any sign of mycorrhizal activity." How can the statement of one writer be attributed to "subsequent authors"?
True, fixed this. Somehow thought the paper cited had more than one author. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "few information is available on" Is this proper English?
No. Fixed to "little information". Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could have an etymology under taxonomy. What is the name derived from?
As for all fungus and plant families, the name is derived from the type genus, so any etymology would be better placed in the Russula article (which actually has info on this). Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "popular mushroom-forming fungi" If only some of them are edible, I'd assume the group is not "popular" as a whole? Not the intro doesn't state why they are "popular".
Popular means well known and easily recognisable, even if not eaten. Not sure how I can make this clearer. Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just write well-known then? Popular seems a bit informal. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That should be it, Tylototriton. When these issues are addressed, I should be ready for support. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worked through your suggestions, thanks for the thorough review! Tylototriton (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber edit

Looks good - few queries below:

  • I'd change "has significantly changed ideas about the taxonomy of the family." to something like "has significantly changed ideas about relationships within the family." - and tchange the next "relationships" to "affinities" in the next sentence. makes the segment more accessible to the lay reader without sacrificing meaning.
  • Link genera at first instance in body of text.
  • Can go either way on refs for the wrappers....

Otherwise looks good and worthy of FA status. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Included your suggestions, thanks! Tylototriton (talk) 09:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on comprehensiveness and prose - nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes edit

@Casliber and FunkMonk: How are things looking for you guys now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look though this today... FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Article essentially meets the FA criteria. There is some link duplication, redundant wording (use of 'also', for example), and a vague 'rather small compound', but nothing that derails the presentation. Praemonitus (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to address some of the redundant wording. Tylototriton (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tylototriton: You can install this script to help you spot duplicate links; I removed a few that seemed excessive, the rest I leave to your discretion. Now it's just occurred to me that this might be your first FAC nomination, in which case we usually ask for a reviewer to perform a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- if any reviewers still watching the page have done that pls let me know, otherwise I'll post a request at WT:FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Installed the script, but it seems you've found them all? I linked taxa in the phylogeny and the image boxes even if they were already linked somewhere in the text, for more superficial readers... Tylototriton (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tylototriton has been inactive since mid-April. Hopefully he will be returning to this nomination soon to address GermanJoe's comments below, or this will have to be archived. --Laser brain (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm back now. Addressed the comments below. Tylototriton (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Welcome to FAC, I see you've done quite a bit of high-quality writing.
  • "their size ranges from 2–17 mm diameter or less in Russula campinensis to 30 cm (12 in) ...": I fixed the garden path ... most will read that as "from 2 to 17", until they get all the way to the second "to", and realize that's the "to" that goes with the "from". To fix it, I had to simplify, and decided to drop the "2" ... if that's important, you might go with "as low as 2" instead, or rewrite.
  • "clustered in "rosettes",": ambiguous, since both the word "rosettes" and quote marks in general can mean different things. Link it instead of enclosing it in quote marks.
Term is not really necessary. Replaced it with cluster. Tylototriton (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer, but reluctantly, because parts of it read like the contents of a database rather than an encyclopedia article. I think perhaps some pruning would fix the problem, but what to prune is up to the editors of our biology articles, particularly the fungus articles, not me. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for ce; some information got however mixed up in the lead, brought that back in shape. Tylototriton (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks (online) - all OK edit

A few (non-academic) spotchecks, as requested on WT:FAC, focussing on 10 randomly picked online sources:

  • ref #1 (3 refs) - mostly OK, but the exact detail "now-obsolete" in usage "b" is apparently not mentioned - the book only mentions this genus as "chromospore", please double-check
Lotsy considered Russulina a separate genus at that time, whereas it is now a synonym of Russula – I clarified this. Tylototriton (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #5 - OK
  • ref #17 (6 refs) - all OK
  • ref #38 - OK
  • ref #50 - OK
  • ref #57 (3 refs) - all OK
  • ref #97 (2 refs) - first OK, second one sources "the Mediterranean orchid Limodorum abortivum only associates with Russula delica and closely related species", however the source notes "a predominant association with ectomycorrhizal fungi of the genus Russula in Limodorum abortivum and its close relatives ..." (emphasis mine) - it looks like the article's statement is too strong and exclusive here.
True, corrected this one. Tylototriton (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #105 - OK
  • ref #110 - OK (general summary statement, covered by source)
  • ref #112 - OK (all mentioned examples and their regions sourced).

Aside from 2 questions, all statements are covered by their sources without any signs of close paraphrasing. When a reference was used multiple times, all usages have been checked (but IANAM). GermanJoe (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The PDF-link for ref #35 is acting up (404 error and the archive server for it is down for maintenance, grml). Not a big problem, as a JSTOR-link is provided as well - but you might want to keep an eye on it (or just delete the 2nd link, if it doesn't come back soon). GermanJoe (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted the second link. Tylototriton (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All minor points have been addressed, thank you (status updated). GermanJoe (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2015 (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/Russulaceae/archive1&oldid=1138470447"