Talk:Amanita abrupta/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Start of review

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. The rules for GA reviews are stated at Good Article criteria. I usually do reviews in the order: coverage; structure; detailed walk-through of sections (refs, prose, other details); images (after the text content is stable); lead (ditto). Feel free to respond to my comments under each one, and please sign each response, so that it's clear who said what.

When an issue is resolved, I'll mark it with Done. If I think an issue remains unresolved after responses / changes by the editor(s), I'll mark it Not done. Occasionally I decide one of my comments is off-target, and ~~strike it out~~

BTW I've occasionally had edit conflicts in review pages, and to reduce this risk I'd be grateful if you'd let me know when you're most active, so I can avoid these times. --Philcha (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS this is my first review of a fungus article, forgive me if I ask some dumb questions. --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage

Y Nothing about ecology - how it feeds, enemies, symboses, victims; types of conditions in which it thrives (heat, wetness, etc.); possibly any effects on the fungus of human actions; the range (N America, Dominica, E Asia) could indicate an introduced species, although there may be other explanations. --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can dig up. Sasata (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've made it a bit more obvious that this is (probably) a mycorrhizal mushroom, but for the most part, because of the lack of specific research about this species, I can only speak in generalities about the ecology of Amanita genus, and so have kept it short (again this will be better dealt with at the genus article). About the other points, there just isn't anything written down that's specific enough to include in this article. For example, I know in general that squirrels consume mushrooms as part of their diet (an "enemy"), but I wouldn't be able to find a statement to that effect that would be relevant to this species. Re: types of conditions in which it thrives... in general, mushrooms prefer to grow after it has rained. I did include the season it's usually found in. With respect to the effects of the fungus of human actions, that's pretty much covered in the toxicity section :) It may well be an introduced species, but the sources I have don't discuss this possibility. I have ordered (via interlibray loan) a book which has a chapter on species in section Lepidella, and if feasible, will add any relevant info when it arrives (probably 1-2 weeks). Sasata (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand about under-studied taxa. However your response "mushrooms prefer to grow after it has rained" has prompted me to note another point, see "General comments" below.

Y Nothing about reproduction and life cycle. -Philcha (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am reluctant to put very much about this, as it wouldn't be any different than any other Amanita, or any one of the 1000s of other Agaricales mushrooms for that matter; I think this kind of thing is best dealt with at higher taxon levels to avoid repeating information in every lower level taxon article. Sasata (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case where I'm aware of my mycological ignorance. In principle I'd favour deciding which taxon level carries the main burden, and including a summary and "Further details at ..." in other levels. --Philcha (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about as a compromise, I promise to soon work on the Agaricales article to bring it up to GA standard (it was rising to the top of my to do list anyways), including a detailed description of the typical mushroom life cycle. When that's done, I'll go through all the mushroom GAs and ensure they are properly linked and referenced to the parent taxon article. Sasata (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll trust you on this - I hope I'm not mellowing. --Philcha (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources & citations

Done After several minutes' Googling I concluded that there's not of material about - fungi appear under-studied (I'm having similar but less severe difficulties in zoology with Ectoprocta and Entoprocta). As a result you've had to use sources WP:RS would generally regard as "sub-prime". For example Google provides evidence that Tulloss is regarded as an authority on amanitas (apparently after training as an electronics engineers, and published some papers a in the IEEE journal). Kuo & Rogers raise similar issues. For this and similar sources I think you should prepare your defence, possibly as a section of this review, in case some rule-basher challenges some of them. --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of anyone alive considered to be more expert in the Amanitaceae than Tulloss, based on reputation and publications, so I'm confident I'd be able to defend myself against the basher. Kuo and the MushroomExpert.com site have been questioned and defended at FAC; Rogers I could replace if someone vehemently opposed its inclusion. Sasata (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you've already defended Kuo at FAC. I'd still favour having it documented at this GA review, or some other page that not's buried in "Talk" archives in a few years - e.g. in case the issue while you're not available. But ultimately it's your call and I'll accept that. --Philcha (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, for future referce, the Kuo MushroomExpert.com website FAC discussions are here and here. Those who doubt Tulloss's status as an Amanita authority need only to do an author search in an Academic database (I use the ISI Web of Knowledge) and see the dozens of related papers he has authored. As for the Roger's Mushroom website, the info presented is largely based on books he has written, like "Mushrooms of North America" (1991, isbn=978-0316706131), and so is based on a reliable (secondary) source. Sasata (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done For Google books links that give a relevant preview, I prefer to link to the book or chapter title rather than to "Google Books" - reduces clutter and tells the reader what the link leads to. OTOH I don't use GB links if there's no relevant preview (e.g. Miller & Miller). --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, have changed the link format. Sasata (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

(looks OK at high level) --Philcha (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox

Done All levels, incl binomial authority, need citations. --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most species-level articles I've seen don't include citations in the taxobox, especially when the relevant info is included in a taxonomy section (as it is here). Citing "all levels" seems redundant (if I'm interpreting your suggestion correctly); the original publication calls it an Amanita, why should I cite the fact that Amanita is in the Amanitaceae, or that Amanitaceae is in the Agaricales? Those citations should be in their respective articles. Sasata (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could be failing to account for the paucity of sources on these fungi. In zoology I'd expect a good textbook to cover the whole hierarchy from phylum to order, and then perhaps the binomial authority from family to species. --Philcha (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I cited family level and higher using a well-known general textbook that has a section on the Amanitaceae in its chapter on the Agaricales. Is this what you had in mind? Sasata (talk) 04:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you can't beat a good textbooks for coverage of basics - if you remember, Annelid cites 1 textbook abnout 30 times. -Philcha (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

Done Studies in the Genus Amanita Pers. (Agaricales, Fungi) (start page of Tulloss's site) says nothing about "first described by American mycologist Charles Horton Peck in 1897 ..." --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have now cited the original paper after the sentence. Sasata (talk)

Done I think "It is in the section Lepidella of the genus Amanita, a subgenus characterized by their amyloid spores" will give non-mycologists some headaches:
- Done I haven't seen "section" as a taxonomic level before, and suggest a w-link to Section (botany). I think this implies revisions to Biological classification and related articles and to File:Biological classification L Pengo.svg, but I don't think that's your problem to solve - I suggest you start discussions at Talk:Biological classification and at related wikiprojects. -Philcha (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done "Amyloid"? A new one to me. --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the link, it is now briefly defined in the "Microscopic charateristics" section Sasata (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Done The sentence structure is confusing, because:
  - Done (I think!) "a subgenus characterized by ..." refers to Lepidella, but "of the genus Amanita" gets in the way. --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done If I got that right, is described as both a sub-genus and a section. --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my error, its actually sub-genus Lepidella and section Lepidella! Sasata (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done I'd place "The species name abrupta refers to the abruptly enlarged, rather than gradually tapering swollen base.[4] Its common name is the "abrupt-bulbed Lepidella"" after "... based on a specimen he found in Auburn, Alabama", so that this set of sentences focuses entirely on A. abrupta. Then "Other North American species ..." switches to its near relatives. --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sasata (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done "phylogenetically" needs explanation as it is unlikely to be understood by the general reader. Something like "close to it in the evolutionary family tree" might help. --Philcha (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, have used your wording. Sasata (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a ratbag, but I generally aim to teach the tech term, e.g. "phylogeny (evolutionary family tree)". --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(making mental note to remember the word "ratbag") I agree, pegagogy is good. Sasata (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so patient. "pedagogy is good" sounds like a line from a movie :-) --Philcha (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done I did some copyedits - are you happy with the results? --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine. Sasata (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Description

Done For the benefit of non-mycologists, should point out that, as in most basidiomycetes, the real "body" is the [hyphae]] while the visible part is a temporary fruiting body - which is the most easily described part. --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a first for me, but I did it. Sasata (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Tuloss says the most mature specimens have a concave top. --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Included. Sasata (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done I suggest emphasising the "abrupt" base as a distinguisher of A. abrupta from other amanitas, per Kuo's "like an egg with the top sliced off". --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happened at "has an abruptly bulbous somewhat base with the shape of a flattened sphere"? --Philcha (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure... removed extraneous word "somewhat". Sasata (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Need to explain mycelium - it's the organism's real body. --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Stipe (mycology) has a pic that would explain ring and volva, and how they are remnants of the universal veil. --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't want to delve too much into basic mushroom concepts in a species article. BTW, that picture is in the mycomorphbox. Sasata (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looks like I need to learn how to read mycology articles :-( --Philcha (talk) 09:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microscopic characteristics

Done I think "in deposit" may be less clear than "in a spore print". --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased for clarity. Sasata (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A twofer! --Philcha (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Re "the basidia (the spore-bearing cells)", I suggest "... (the spore-bearing cells on the edges of the gills)" --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Sasata (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done It would be nice if there were a simple explanation of clamp connection. --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is now. Sasata (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember "There is now" from a really old SF story - the pangalactic "internet" declared itself God :-) --Philcha (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the days when I had time to read science fiction. I'll probably read some more when I have more time, like after retirement :) Sasata (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the really old story (?early 1950s), I've just remembered that Orson Scott Card's "Ender Wiggin" trilogy features a interstellar "internet" Jane (Ender's Game) that gradually develops self-consciousness and at the end of the final book, Xenocide, becomes a deus ex machina. --Philcha (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similar species

Y In zoology I'm getting keener on comparison tables for making similarities and differences apparent, see for examples at Annelid#Distinguishing_features and Ctenophore#Distinguishing_features. --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks you're less keen on the idea. --Philcha (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done "A. polypyramis has also been noted to be similar" - to which, A. abrupta or A. kotohiraensis? --Philcha (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. Sasata (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Habitat and distribution

Y I'd make this a sub-section of "Ecology", which would contain other sections on interactions with other orgisms - predators, victims / food, symbionts, etc. --Philcha (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See above for reasons an "ecology" section likely will not materialize. Sasata (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A shame, but if the sources dont' exist ... --Philcha (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Should have more about types of environment preferred / avoided, and southern limit of range(s). --Philcha (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Found a source to confirm the southern limit extnds to Mexico. Sasata (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good find! --Philcha (talk) 09:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Citation for "Liste des Macromycètes ..." needs formatting - excess [ at start. --Philcha (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got this fixed once I figured out the problem was that that I listed the url in the cite template first, rather than after the title. Sasata (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a bug in the template, since it's a named param and order should not be important. --Philcha (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll drop a note at the template talk page. Sasata (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done "Noted to have an infrequent occurrence" - you mean it's quite rare? --Philcha (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, now "rare". Sasata (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicity

Done I'm not sure " latent period is helpful, as the linked article refers to infections / contagions and distinguishes between incubation and latency. How about "delay"? --Philcha (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Sasata (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bioactive compounds

Done I understand the significance of L-2-amino-4,5-hexadienoic acid - it's though to be what A. abrupta dangerous. But what do (2S,4Z)-2-amino-5-chloro-6-hydroxy-4-hexenoic acid and D,L-2-amino-4-pentynoic acid do? --Philcha (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Re "This compound was shown to have mild inhibitory effects ...2 (about D,L-propargylglycine), is it dangerous, or just slows down rats a little, or what? --Philcha (talk) 17:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured out that propargylglycine and 2-amino-4-pentynoic acid are synonymous, so have reworded this section appropriately, and added a bit more info about this compound. Couldn't find anything else on 2-amino-5-chloro-6-hydroxy-4-hexenoic acid. Sasata (talk) 07:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is GA, not FA. --Philcha (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

For odd comments prompted on earlier discussions and after another read through- sorry!

Done For mycologists the hyphae are the real body of the organism, while others (e.g. collectors, cooks) are mainly aware of the temporary fruiting bodies. I think you need to clarify in this in a few places ("pedagogy is good"):
- "Similar species" is largely about fruiting bodies. --Philcha (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I went through the articles and in several places (including the lead), specified that I was talking about fruit bodies.

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Y I notice "Habitat and distribution" makes the distinction in the 1st & sentences - nice! --Philcha (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few more copyedits

I've done a few more copyedits - are these OK? --Philcha (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links validity check

The link checker report for this article shows:

Done The Metzler and Metzler ref for "stained with Melzer's reagent" is malformed. --Philcha (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's now in a proper cite web template. Sasata (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y Rest look OK. --Philcha (talk) 04:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check for disambiguation and other dubious wikilinks

Y Byrial's w-links checker shows no disambigs. --Philcha (talk) 04:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use of images

Done The 2 images used are from the same website, by the same person, and have similar copyright. I think you need to do a little paperwork. --Philcha (talk) 05:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything's fine. I've uploaded about 200 photos from this website (and probably more than a couple dozen of those were taken by Dan, who shot these pics), all with identical, allowable, cc-by-sa-3.0 licenses, with no problems yet. Is there something specific you think is missing? Sasata (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed the CC licences because they're shown as small icons rather than text. Might be a good idea to add the accessdate (just as text) to the image descr pages, in case the source pages change or vanish - then a copy "as at date X" from Internet Archive would preserve the evidence. I admit to being paranoid, especially where the Commons bureaucracy is concerned :-) --Philcha (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Y Short, but omits nothing important :-) --Philcha (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done I don't think the chem formula of the toxic ingredient is improtant here, and might put non-specialist readers off. --Philcha (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I admit I was trying to fatten the lead. Removed. Sasata (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Repetition of "poison[ing]" - I'd strike "A. abrupta is blamed for the ~~poisoning~~ deaths of two Japanese women in 1978". --Philcha (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sasata (talk) 05:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Pass as GA

I'm very pleased to say that this article meets or exceeds the Good Article criteria: it provides good coverage, is neutral and well-referenced, clearly-written, complies with the parts of WP:MOS required for a GA and uses appropriate images that have good captions and comply with WP's policies on images. Many thanks for the work you've put into this. I particularly appreciate the care you've put into sourcing an article in an under-studied topic, where sources are few. --Philcha (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in kind for a thoughtful, thorough review. I hope this pleasant experience inspires you to consider reviewing more fungal GACs in the future! Sasata (talk) 06:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - - please add review comments /responses above this line - - - - -
If you want to start a new section of the Talk page while this review is still here, edit the whole page, i.e. use the "edit" link at the top of the page.