I didn't expect to be bringing this here when I started the article, but, in light of this recent discussion, I decided to nominate it. This is a newly described species of mushroom; the article makes use of all available sources and, I feel, discusses everything one could hope to know about the species. It passed GAC with compliments from the reviewer, and I look forward to your thoughts. On the subject of an image of the species, I have contacted Laura Guzmán-Dávalos, but she has not replied. J Milburn (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, interesting. The length and the reliance on a single source are not in themselves problems. However I don't think it meets the FA criteria at present. My concerns are:
Comprehensiveness. The description of the mushroom is very detailed. However, there is relatively little to put it in context. For instance, what is its place in the ecosystem? What were the circumstances of its discovery/identification?
It's a saprotroph, as is discussed in the article. I have expanded a tiny bit on the circumstances of its discovery (specimens were collected by Contu during field work). J Milburn (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Media. I would be loath to support this article without one or more pictures of the organism itself. Since it is an existing species it is clearly possible to obtain such pictures.
Image The one image is appropriately licensed. I suspect that if there was a free image, J Milburn would have found it, and it's not reasonable to expect a trip to Italy to take a photo. I have no problem with the absence of an image, although you could consider a sketch Jimfbleak -talk to me? 16:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there a reason you don't link spectabilis and imperialis in the lead?
I'm not referring to Gymnopilus spectabilis and Gymnopilus imperialis, the two species, I am referring to the clade spectabilis–imperialis, which includes both those species and more (and is, in itself, probably not worthy of an article). I thought it would be misleading to link to the species. J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
"G. maritimus produces the smallest mushrooms in the clade, but it shares with all other members"—previous sentence implies maritimus is sister to, not part of, the imperialis-spectabilis clade; this implies it is part of the clade
"The yellowish hyphae are between 15 and 13.5 μm wide"—is this just a transposition or is one of the numbers wrong?
Well spotted, fixed. J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The description mentions the mushroom's mild taste (in the abstract); why is there nothing in the article?
It's mentioned in the lead ("and the yellow flesh has a mild taste"), and under the description ("There is no distinctive odour, and the taste is mild or slightly bitter"). J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Not the first time I missed that in a mushroom article. I'm sorry! Ucucha 14:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Otherwise, I see few problems with the article, though I haven't checked the sources in any detail yet. Ucucha 22:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with the emphasis on "very localised": it is no different from the scores of other species that are known only from the type locality—and indeed is more widely distributed than many, because it was found at several places 30 m distant from each other. Ucucha 22:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. I see your point, thought I have been very careful to say that it is known only from that area, not to suggest that it is found only in that area. J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I've attempted a rewording. Ucucha 14:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Gymnopilus spectabilis redirects to G. junonius, but this article implies both are separate species. Which is correct? Ucucha 14:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The redirect is probably correct, but there are some who consider them separate. I'll try to work it into the article a little more. J Milburn (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
We could reasonably have articles on both names, though the question of synonymity would be discussed. I've tried to clarify the issue in the article. J Milburn (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments—It's been quite a while since I've been able to comment about someone else's mushroom article at FAC! I've deliberately kept my hands off the article (mostly) so I could weigh in here. Sasata (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
"…first observed in northern Sardinia, Italy, in 2009." Incorrect; the holotype was collected in 2006, but the species was published in 2009.
Yes, you're right, sorry. I have updated it to the date of first collection, and expanded on the holotype in the taxonomy section in response to comments from The Land above. J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
"The mushrooms have thick gills of a variable colour," "Variable" is quite vague, how about specifying a colour range?
"…but can be differentiated from both. Despite this, it is not closely related to either" Could be reworded so that the subject of "Despite this" is clearer (i.e., despite that it's similar in appearance, or despite that it can be differentiated?)
thought about putting in a pic of Juncus maritimus?
I considered it, but I didn't want to give the false impression that whatever I pictured was where the species grew; obviously, the habitat described is a little more specific than "under Juncus maritimus". I could if you think it would be a positive addition. J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it's justified here: the species is intimately associated with the plant, and is named after it; the caption might read something like "G. maritimus is associated with and named after the sea rush Juncus maritimus" (well, this message but preferably with more elegant prose!). It might be a challenge, though, to find a place to put it without dipping into the refs and messing the two-column formatting. Maybe something like File:Juncus maritimus2.jpg would work, as it's wider than it is tall. Sasata (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I had a play; about the best I could manage was this, which seems a bit of a botch job. If you think placing the image partially in the section above is OK, I will have an experiment with some of the taller ones, which may actually be more aesthetically pleasing. J Milburn (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment on sources: I am not familiar with this topic, and with regard to length, comprehensiveness etc I'm happy to accept the opinions of those with expert knowledge. However, the almost total reliance on a single article as a source does seem to me to be questionable, and probably unprecedented at featured level. Is there no other learned source relevant to this subject? Maybe the subject experts could comment on this? Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
For species like this, there typically would only be a single source for some time; other sources will slowly emerge (for instance, people studying Gymnopilus generally, people discussing the habitat, people describing other, similar species, appearances in guidebooks, etc) but this is still relatively new. There is another source, written by some of the same authors, in the Italian language; effectively just a description of this and another species in Italian for the first time- the description is very openly just a translation of this article, but there are some new notes and comments, so there may be a couple of things to add. Alfredo Vizzini did say he would send it to me, and so it should be with me any day. J Milburn (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Like JM said, there really is nothing other than the main publication, and the Italian-language publication with which a few sentences might be added. It would be possible to artificially inflate the bibliography by including some sources that are more generally about the genus, or adding citations from other sources in the "Similar species" section, but I don't think it would truly improve 1b (comprehensive) or 1c (well-researched). Personally, I'm leaning towards support, but am holding out and hoping JM gets a hold of the Italian pub (... and a photo too, but I know from personal experience that that's unlikely). Sasata (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
FAC backlog, no consensus to promote after two weeks, please come back as soon as Sasata is satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.