Wikipedia:Peer review/Fungus/archive1

Fungus edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This important article is a core topic, and receives on average thousands of hits per day (putting it in the top 5000 on Wikipedia). I'm willing to put in the work to help it reached featured status. Somewhat related FA-topics that might serve as useful comparisons include archaea, bacteria, and virus. I'd like to get some fresh eyes to look at the article, and hear some opinions about what could be improved. This article is a behemoth, so even comments about any one particular section would be highly appreciated. Thanks in advance! Sasata (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad that this important article is not getting more attention here. From my first reading I am very impressed with its content and style and it is close to FA level in my view. Initially I had problems with Virus, because lay-readers found it hard going in places. I can't see this being too much of a problem here, but being familiar with the scientific terms probably clouds my view. This is one of those things that usually only surface at FAC, if at all. It would be nice to see some of the images on the left. A picture of a dermatophyte culture would also be nice, if you agree, and there isn't one available on Commons, I will take produce one from the cultures at my laboratory. I might have more to add later after I have re-read this fascinating article. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very good article. My only issues is that several of the sections are poorly referenced. ResMar 23:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both for your comments. Malljaja, with whom I'm working, has just put in a bit about endophytic fungi, and I'll have a look over at Commons to see if I can find an image. If not, I'll probably take you up on your kind offer, Graham. I'll make sure all sections are adequately referenced before FAC. Sasata (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found a nice pic of the endophyte Neotyphodium coenophialum. Still need to tweak image placement in entire article. Sasata (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I think this looks pretty close to FAC, but there are somethings that need attention before that. Here are some suggestions for improvement - mostly more references needed and nitpicks.

Biggest potential problem I see is a lack of references in some places - these may be "common scientific knowledge" but I still think that there will be reviewers at FAC who will want refs for these points too. A few examples: almost the entire Charatceristics section has no refs, there are zero refs in Macroscopic structures or Asexual reproduction, and there are several places at the end of paragraphs where there will be a ref followed by a phrase or sentence(s) without refs, such as This process might bear similarity to photosynthesis in plants,[28] but detailed biochemical data supporting the existence of this hypothetical pathway are presently lacking. or Historically, fly agaric was used by Celtic Druids in Northern Europe and the Koryak people of north-eastern Siberia for religious or shamanic purposes.[117] It is difficult to accurately identify a safe mushroom without proper training and knowledge, thus it is often advised to assume that a mushroom in the wild is poisonous and not to consume it.

Thanks for highlighting this deficiency. I'm going through the article now and trying to cite everything like you suggest so it won't be an issue at FAC. For the most part it's fairly easy to find sources, but there are still some statements it's difficult to back up with a reference; I may just end up taking some of these out, or replacing them. Sasata (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
~~In the Etymology section is there any idea what root mycology is thought to be based on?~~

Now added. Sasata (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Characteristics section I would use "Unique features" instead of "Other features" (following the topic sentence The fungi have a range of features defining the fungal kingdom, some of which are shared with other organisms while others are unique to the fungi: which might read better as The fungal kindom is defined by a range of features, some of which are shared with other organisms while others are unique to the fungi)

Have switched to "Unique features" for now, but it appears this section may be pending a rewrite. Sasata (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, they have helped to improve the article. Will try to help out at PR as time permits. Sasata (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from early-involved-but-placing-comments-here-as-let's-strike-while-the-iron-is-hot Casliber edit

morphologically similar - I wonder if there is any meaning lost by replacing with something similar like "structurally similar" or something. I am thinking about the old accessibility/jargon/careful not to lose meaning chestnut. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

certain fungal species - "certain" gives me no idea of frequency. "many"? "a few"? or some sort of number might be good.

Number of species known and also estimated might be good in lede

Am planning to expand the lede to 3 paragraphs after all the other stuff is done, will include your suggestion. Want to do an especially good job on this (i.e. "brilliant prose" to capture the reader's interest), so may have to solicit someone's help! Sasata (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Characteristics I am torn about whether it should be prose or bulletted. I can see cases for both but think the first is probably preferable. the first sentence i think needs rewording but not sure to what yet.

Having just read the article again I now see that the section "Physiological and morphological traits" repeats much of the same information in the "Characteristic" section, so these two should be combined somehow. What do you think Malljaja? Sasata (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's definitely some overlap, and this may be an issue for FAC. The Characteristics section is fairly new, introduced by another editor (I modified it a little), as way to make more accessible info that is dispersed throughout the entry. I think some redundancy—highlighting take-home-points—is justified given the size of the topic. So I'd prefer some paring down of the "Physiological and morphological traits" section and leave the "Characteristics" section largely as is (bullets are probably the way to go or else it could be made into a table).Malljaja (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, fungal fossils do not become common and uncontroversial.. - "undisputed" might be better here, certain?

I haven't changed that yet, as it appears there's some new publications on the fungal fossil record, and that section will need some updating.

We need to see if repetition can be reduced without losing meaning - not surprisingly, the word 'fungi' appears alot, sometimes in three sentences in a row. Trying to reduce some of these would be good.

An excellent point. I just went through and removed 40(!) instances of fungi/fungus/fungal; probably more could be dropped too. I'll be sure to read through Tony1's redundancy exercises again before submitting to FAC! Sasata (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The early fossil record of the fungi is incomplete - er, yes, the fossil record of anything is incomplete. Maybe a word like "meagre" or "poor" is more apt.

Have substituted meager for incomplete. Sasata (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Philcha edit

(not really my thing, but I picked up a few things en passant)

Apparent gaps in coverage edit

~~Role of lichens & "pure" fungi in soil formation, see Evolutionary_history_of_life#Evolution_of_soil - vital in evolution, almost still important even in fertile areas, by recycling organics.~~ --Philcha (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~No mention of Ergotism - IIRC a significant disease in medieval Europe. :-)~~ Philcha (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~No "magic mushrooms"?~~ --Philcha (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Most grow in terrestrial environments" (Fungus#Diversity), it's pretty certain fungi originated in the seas, see fossil record. So why are they now predominantly land organisms? I'm interested because Chelicerata have also moved from sea to land (only 1 extanct genus & 4 extant species are now aquatic), while Crustacea remain predominantly marine. In the case of crustaceans, lack of water-conserving respiratory and excretory sytems appears to be a constraint, but I've not yet seem a reason for the decline of marine / aquatic chelicerates. --Philcha (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~IIRC the largest known organism is a honey fungus covering (?) 2 counties in Pensylvania.~~ --Philcha (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics edit

"The fungal cell wall contains glucans also found in plants, but also chitin not found in the Plant kingdom, but in some animals" is ambuiguous, might imply animals' cell walls contain chitin - but animals have no cell walls. --Philcha (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might consider using a table, as at Cnidaria, Ctenophore, Flatworm, & Annelid - IMO it makes comparisons easier. --Philcha (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With algae and cyanobacteria edit

~~AFAIK most lichen fungi are ascomycetes, see Evolutionary history of life#Evolution of soil for ref. --Philcha (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

there already -> "...and fungi (mostly various species of ascomycetes and a few basidiomycetes)..."

Evolutionary history edit

F~~ossil record apparently goes back 1,430 million years ago, see Evolutionary_history_of_life#Diversification_of_eucaryotes and Evolutionary_history_of_life#Multicellularity.~~ --Philcha (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~The pic File:Phylogenie.png has no ref (they get stroppy about that at FAC), and IMO adds little /nothing to the cladogram. --Philcha (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
There's another cladogram at Evolutionary_history_of_life#Diversification_of_eucaryotes, with refs - dunno if you can extract anything from that. --Philcha (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can make cladograms behave like thumbs by wrapping them in 2 DIVs, with the cladogram in the inner and the caption between the 2, see Evolutionary_history_of_life#Diversification_of_eucaryotes. --Philcha (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to say something about multicellularity:
- The cladogram at Evolutionary_history_of_life#Diversification_of_eucaryotes implies convergent multicellularity in plants, animals and fungi (unless extant choanozoa are only secondarily unicellular). So why was it such a good thing? --Philcha (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Evidence at Evolutionary_history_of_life#Multicellularity, w ref.~~--Philcha (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any comments on the idea that sexual repro was a prereq (Evolutionary_history_of_life#Multicellularity)?
- You might find Bonner (1999 - citation at Evolutionary_history_of_life) interesting, he thinks size was the driver for multicellularity. Even if you don't use it, it's a pleasure to read. --Philcha (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]