Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I think this mushroom article is close to meeting the FA standards. It's relatively short, but I think I've got criteria 1b (comprehensive) and 1c (well-researched) covered, and the prose reads ok to me. I'll be grateful for any assistance in further refining the article. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sasata. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose This article mentions its bioactive qualities, but makes no mention as to human uses of such qualities. I can't imagine that a mushroom with such a notable feature would have no uses within medicine, or scientific research at the very least. This should be covered, assuming the information exists, which again, I have to assume it does. Fieari (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Isn't that what the "Bioactive compounds" section is about? --John (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
The Bioactive compounds section already summarizes what is known about the bioactive properties of the compound scutigeral. There are no "human uses" for this chemical. Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
This is not an actionable oppose as it is based on speculation rather than established facts, and it will not be taken into consideration when closing. Graham Colm (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Order Russulales. I've fixed the genus and family articles. Sasata (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
"Josiah Lincoln Lowe later identified the species as Albatrellus confluens." Presumably, he incorrectly thought the name was a synonym of A. confluens? This could be clearer.
I've commented this statement out until I can get the source from the library and figure out exactly what I was trying to say. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Finally got a hold of the source; I've edited the sentence to clarify. Sasata (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
"to the albatrellus clade," Lower case? No italics? I can see why you've done this, but it may stump some readers.
I'm following the formatting used in the source. Giving clade names in caps and italics might cause readers to confuse them with genus names. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
"Other Albatrellus species were transferred to segregate genera: A. fletti and A. confluens to Albatrellopsis; A. caeruleoporus and A. yasudae to Neoalbatrellus; A. pes-caprae and A. ellisii to an amended Scutiger." If they were transferred to new genera, why are you linking their old names?
I've pointed the links to the correct spots. Hopefully I can blue those redlinks by the end of this FAC. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
"the pores are small (about 2–3 per millimeter), initially greenish-white, but later dark brown." Too listy?
"two- and three-needle pines" Can we have some links for context?
Couldn't find a link, so glossed a definition. Sasata (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
"writes that Arora "found many clumps of basidiomes in a half hectare area covered mainly by a mixture of Pinus attenuata, manzanita, huckleberry, and a few scattered mandrones."" I don't mind this, but, as a warning, links within quotes should be avoided, according to the MoS.
I've paraphrased the quote. Sasata (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Images are fine.
Interesting stuff- how odd to have a polypore in mushroom shape. A strong article overall, though I've not delved into the sources. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Support. I'm happy with the responses, and another quick look through the article reveals no issues. J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Support Comments from Jim Just a few quibbles before I support Jimfbleak -talk to me? 12:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
bruising reaction — unless this means something more technical than "when bruised", I'd prefer the simpler form
Simplified. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
bioactive chemical named scutigeral — I don't like "named " scutigeral, a bioactive chemical...
Yes, I like that better too, changed. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
You're missing a location for reference 6, but I'm more concerned that we need to be told what countries London, Milan and Stuttgart are in, but not Boston or Syracuse. Seems US-centric. Personally I've given up adding more than the town, just to avoid making judgements about notability.
I think I'll start doing that, as it simplifies the references, and will not hinder the reader's ability to find the source. Thanks for the comments. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Support: My concerns were addressed. It appears to satisfy the featured article criteria so I'm supporting promotion. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Only two concerns:
The last sentence in the lede is ambiguous in what subject it is addressing: perhaps precede with a "This".
Now clarified. Sasata (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The article is inconsistent in how it labels individuals: some show the nationality and specialty, others not. In particular, Serge Audet and David Arora. Please address these two instances.
I try to be circumspect with giving these details, as almost everyone mentioned in these articles is a mycologist, and further details (like nationality) can be found in their respective articles. I usually make an exception, however, for whoever first described the species. I did add these details for Serge Audet, as a link is not available (or forthcoming). Sasata (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Otherwise I could find nothing to fault with the article. Nice work. Praemonitus (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. Sasata (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)