Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Myriostoma/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 02:00, 13 June 2012 [1].

Myriostoma

[edit]

Myriostoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Myriostoma coliforme, aka the "salt-shaker earthstar", is a widely distributed fungus, and one of 33 species proposed for protection under the Bern Convention. The article has been a good article for about two years, and with the help of Circeus, I've recently updated the literature and smoothed out some rough edges. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good; a few quick thoughts-

  • "As they mature, the exoperidium (the outer tissue layer of the peridium) splits open into rays and curves backward, which pushes the fruit body above the substrate." Singular/plural switch
  • "Fully opened individuals" Fully-opened? Also, is "individuals" the best wording?
  • "tip to tip" tip-to-tip?
  • "The rays number 8–14, of unequal size and with tips that often roll back inward." Doesn't quite read right
  • "There are columellae (sterile tissue usually in the base of the gleba, and extending up through the gleba)" columellae is countable; tissue is not. Areas of sterile tissue? I'm not sure what columellae are.
  • "by Woodward (1797):" Who? He's not been introduced yet.
  • The "Similar species" section would really benefit from something like "and so can readily be distinguished from other species", but, without a source, I think this would be a tiny bit OR-y. It's OK as is if there is no source, though.
  • Circeus has already changed this, but at least a couple of my sources explicitly state that this species is hard to confuse with other earthstars. I could cite this, but I don't think it's likely to be challenged. Sasata (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why have you chosen the Sowerby illustration over the lectotype illustration? Surely the latter would have more value? I admit that Sowerby's is easier on the eye... Is there a chance both could fit into the article?

Short, but it seems everything which needs to be covered is covered. As ever, I'm impressed by your very detailed account of the taxonomy. I made a few small changes. J Milburn (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the first point, there is no switch. "Which" is referring to the entie sentence, the action described being what pushes the fruit body, but I agree the sentence can be confusing.
I'm fairly sure there is- "As they mature, the exoperidium". J Milburn (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point is moot, since I replaced the pronoun with a different one which makes the construction clearer, but I insist, in this case, "which" was not a relative pronoun, but a summative one, which (oh look, it's another summative "which" to boot!) the replacement with "this" makes clear. Circéus (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the full sentence is "from ray tip to tip", and I'm fairly confident that never takes hyphens.
Agree, because it's not being used as an attributive adjective, per here. Sasata (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re: the lectotype image, have you _looked_ at it? I did and I immediately concluded putting it in the article wasn't that good. Linking to it, though, might be a good idea (the way we link to the spore pics).
I agree it's hardly easy on the eye. I'm happy to defer to what you two think, I just thought I'd throw it out there. J Milburn (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought about adding it, but it's simply a poor black & white scan of something that was originally color, and it doesn't fit with the FAC ideal of using the best images available. At any rate, the link is prominently displayed, and it's only a single click away. Sasata (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to improve the other bits. Circéus (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Everything's looking great. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "so named because outer wall of the spore-bearing body splits open into the shape of a star." Just me perhaps, but I think it could use another "the" before "outer wall".
  • Habitat and distribution: Minor, but I don't think the first word of "The Netherlands" needs the capitalization.
  • Not sure about the external link in note 2. We tend to discourage them in-text, and the image is avaliable in the cited material anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article things are definitely not just you! They're fixed now. As for the link, well, that's why it's in a footnote! It's a highly informative image to make it obvious what is being described. There's a reason we have {{external media}}, but this is far less invasive. Circéus (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I'll go with your judgement on the external link, although I wouldn't use one myself. My couple of other comments have been resolved, and the article rises to the level of the other mushroom FAs by this editor. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Supported below looks good thus far, a few small comments:
  • I'm not sure if Middle East should be linked.
  • A few repeated wikilinks: check spore, Geastrum, peridium, mycelial, and gleba.
  • "while it prefers similar habitat on north-facing slopes in Australia" should this be "a similar habitat"?
  • "The species occurs in both deciduous and mixed forests, gardens, along hedges and grassy road banks as well as grazed grasslands." I'm not sure, but this reads a little awkwardly to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alright, I've finished my review and found very little not complain about. I don't know much about mushrooms, so I can't evaluate accuracy, but as best as I can tell, the article seems to be up to FA quality. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear reviewers After a conversation with Circeus, I decided to overhaul the presentation of distribution. It's about the same length, but about twenty references were removed as they were no longer necessary. I hope this change meets with everyone's approval, but let me know if you disagree with the new format. Sasata (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind, we'd keep a couple selected references to carry over the "all over" distribution (since otherwise the statement that it's "found on all five continents in its natural habitat" is unsourced), so I'll restore a couple refs along some rewriting, but otherwise the paragraph sits okay with me. Circéus (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2012 (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/Myriostoma/archive1&oldid=1076191883"