Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Marasmius rotula is a widespread and common mushroom with some interesting biological properties. The article has been a GA for over two years, and I recently surveyed the literature to make the article as comprehensive as possible. Thanks again to Circeus for providing a pre-FAC quality control check and ferreting out some of my errors. Sasata (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2012 (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, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I found someMarasmius mushrooms one of the first times I went out mushroom hunting, so I'm always happy to see them again.
"In 1946 Alexander H. Smith and Rolf Singer proposed to conserve the genus name Marasmius over Micromphale, which had nomenclatorial priority, with M. rotula as the lectotype. The generic name Marasmius, with M. rotula as the lectotype species, was later conserved at the 1954 Paris Congress on Botanical Nomenclature." This doesn't read so well.
Have simplified this. Better now? Sasata (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Worth looking into whether it is Marasmius bulliardi or Marasmius bulliardii; both this and the article on the species are inconsistent
Inconsistent due to my faulty spelling; now fixed in both articles. Sasata (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
"In fact the species is relatively intolerant of low water potentials, and will grow poorly or not at all under water stress conditions, and is unable to degrade leaf litter until it becomes more fragmented and more compacted so that the water-holding capacity increases in the deeper layers of the soil." Sentence needs splitting
"whereas previous studies using similar methods for other Agaricomycetes showed spore discharge over a period of up to six days after revival only" Very important point, but I wonder if it could be said in a slightly different way? The hanging "only" doesn't come across that well.
Tweaked prose. Sasata (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
It's perhaps worth noting that "horse-hair fungus" is also used for other Marasmius species? (Marasmius androsaceus is mentioned by Roger Phillips)
... and M. crinis-equi too – done. Sasata (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
There are some great pictures in this article, and the use of quotations really adds some interest. I don't understand the last paragraph, but do not let that be a criticism; it's late, and I'm certainly not a chemist. I made some small edits. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I'll see how other reviewers feel about it, and try to simplify it if your confusion is consensual. Thanks for your comments. Sasata (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Images are great, no licensing issues. J Milburn (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Support I'm satisfied that this meets the FA criteria though, not much that I can complain about. I'm really starting to enjoy these mushroom articles. I made some minor tweaks as I read through, and just have a few small comments. (Note though that I'm very ignorant of the subject matter.)
” The type species of the genus Marasmius, M. rotula was first described” should there be a second comma here?
I think it's ok as is. There's a name for this particular grammatical construction, but for the life of me I can't remember what it is. Sasata (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
” were more readily obtained if the end of the stem was” Should there be a subjunctive here?
Changed to "more readily obtained if the stem ends were placed in water" Sasata (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
“The fruit bodies, or mushrooms, of M. rotula are characterized by their whitish, thin, membranous caps” Not a big deal, but I noticed that you listed three things without an “and” here. “Their apical surfaces are covered with yellowish blunt, conical warts” as well.
Fixed three; kept the dup link to M. bulliardii so that all of the species in that subsection are consistently link-accessible. Sasata (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure here, but should "In general, enzymes catalyzing oxygen-transfer reactions" be possessive? "In general, enzymes' catalyzing oxygen-transfer reactions" Mark Arsten (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Changed this one to "enzymes that catalyze". Thanks for taking the time to read (and support), Mark. Sasata (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Source check, spotchecks not done.
"RogersMushrooms" doesn't need to be italicised
"New Taxa and New combinations of Agaricales (Diagnoses Fungorum Novorum Agaricalium IV)" is currently formatted as something between a book and an article. I'd go for one or the other. (For instance, if it's a book, the capitalisation should be adjusted and a publication location should be added.)
Check your spelling of the title of the Bulletin de la Société Royale de Botanique de Belgique article
Everything is evidently reliable; good, published sources, or uncontroversial information from websites of published authors. I personally would go for more wikilinks- notable magazines/journals, publishers and so on. But that's your choice, it's fine how it is. J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Support. I am happy that this is an extremely strong article, very much worthy of featured status. J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks JM. I've fixed the citation issues you listed above. I tend to employ a more conservative link philosophy in the references section, more out of habit than anything else at this point. I've been thinking for a while about starting up a "mushroom MoS", and perhaps the Fungi wikiproject can hash out the details of best practices for style/linking and other similar issues. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Delegate note -- I can't think of many less controversial subjects than funghi, nevertheless going through recent FACs it seems to have been a while since you've had a spotcheck of sources, Sasata -- unless I've missed one lately that you can point out? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
"In his 1821 Natural Arrangement of British Plants, Samuel Frederick Gray introduced the generic name Micromphale, including the species Micromphale collariatum,(Ref 1) which was based on William Withering's 1796 Merulius collariatus.(Ref 9)" Two problems here. Ref 1 calls itself "A Natural Arrangement of British Plants"; note the "A" in front. The other problem is that although Withering 1796 does use the name Merulius collariatus, there is no indication in either source that this was the inspiration for Gray's name for the same species. Is there a third source out there which makes this connection?
Added the missing "A". In most fungus articles that I write, the general reference for taxonomical opinions and species synonymy is given in the citation in the taxobox beside "Synonyms" (in this case, Index Fungorum). You'll note, however, that the link between the two names is not spelled out explicitly on the IF page—it takes a bit of "insider" knowledge to know that if Merulius collariatus With. and Micromphale collariatum (With.) Gray are listed as synonyms, the authorship of the latter synonym indicates that it is based on the name of the former–the name in parentheses indicates the original author. In this specific instance though, Gray does indicate the naming sequence Agaricus rotula Scop. -> Agaricus collariatus With. -> Merulius collariatus With.. Sasata (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The citation for Ref 6 does not indicate what language the article is written in.
Missed that, now added. Sasata (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
"M. rotuloides, known only from Trinidad, has smaller, ovoid spores measuring 5 by 2.5 µm. (Ref 33)" No sourcing or paraphrasing problems here, but is this really the best comparison that can be drawn between the two species? I would think that some characteristic that is visible to the naked eye (or tongue) would be more helpful to the lay reader.
As far as my Google-Latin translation skills can tell, there are no major macroscopic differences between the two species; only the distribution and the spore size set them apart. This is not uncommon in the mushroom world; in some cases species that are otherwise macro- and microscopically identical are declared different because of sufficient difference in DNA sequence. Will the lay reader care about this poorly known mushroom from an exotic locale that's probably only been collected and written about once? I doubt it. I thought about leaving this out, but criteria 1b requires that the article is comprehensive, and it didn't seem right to omit mention of a lookalike species that is specifically named after the article subject (rotula -> rotuloides). Sasata (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The sentence as it is currently written does not suggest that this is the only differentiating feature. The beginning of the Similar species section suggests that the species therein will differ by some macroscopic characteristic; mentioning macroscopic differences for all of the other species except this one just makes the reader go "...so how does it look different?". If the answer is "It doesn't.", then that should be mentioned explicitly. Also, if rotuloides is named after rotula, isn't that also worth mentioning? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
To be fair, the beginning of this section does say that "... differences in size, gill arrangement, and substrate are usually sufficient field characteristics to distinguish between them." But your suggestion is valid: I've now mentioned explicitly that microscopy is needed to distinguish them, and moved this species comparison to the end of the paragraph to set it apart from the previous species that have macroscopic distinguishing features. Unfortunately, the source doesn't say unequivocally that rotuloides is based on rotula, so I'd prefer not to do so here. Sasata (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
"The species is relatively intolerant of low water potentials, and will grow poorly or not at all under water stress conditions.Ref 37Ref 38" Ref 38 supports this statement, but I'm not sure that Ref 37 does. Unless I'm misinterpreting the data, the results table in Ref 37 seems to indicate that M. rotula is the most tolerant of low water potentials of the species that were studied. The final remarks of the article say that "many of the important litter-decomposing agarics in the genera Marasmius ... were more sensitive to water stress", but the authors don't give any specific statements on which species they were referring to. Your thoughts?
I think it does support the statement based on these quotes from the source: "All nine litter-decomposing agarics proved to be relatively intolerant of water stress, ..." and later "... five were more sensitive to water stress and ceased growth at water potentials below –3.0 MPA (referring to the Wilson 1979 paper) ... The results reported here suggest that many of the important litter-decomposing agarics in the genera Marasmius ... may fall into the latter category." The only two Marasmius species tested in this paper were M. rotula and M. androsaceus, so I don't think my summary of their results is a distortion of the facts. Sasata (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
That's odd, as the issn is the same that's given on their web page. But a dead link is useless, so I've removed it. Sasata (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm slightly confused as to why there is only one work in the Cited literature section.
It's like an abbreviated version of "short-form" footnotes. I cite Gilliam (1976) several times, with widely differing page numbers (and direct links to those pages); it seems like the most economical solution to give this information. All of the other references can be adequately covered by just giving the article page ranges, or, in some instances, specifying a single page within the larger page range.
I would argue that the most economical solution would be to employ Template:Rp for the Gilliam refs. I realize that WP:CITE recommends deferring to the style employed by the first major contributor, but like, come on bro. :P --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
That's a handy template, I agree, but it doesn't allow one to add a url link (or am I missing something?). Sasata (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
True, I hadn't thought of that. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 09:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the lead should mention the distribution of the shroom.
Made it more explicit. Sasata (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
What makes Ref 19 a reliable source? The About Us page doesn't seem to indicate that the author has any expertise in mycology or botany whatsoever, nor does there appear to be any peer-review process for the web content he has created. If "collared parachute" is a commonly-used synonym for this mushroom, surely that would be mentioned in some scholarly journal article, yes? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This has come up before. Basically, the website is the web version of his popular book Mushrooms and other Fungi of North America. But I swapped the ref for the British Mycological Society list of recommended common English names for fungi. Sasata (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)