Overall, I think this is a well-written and interesting article. Some of my comments below extend beyond the GA criteria (especially the reference comments–feel free to ignore the nitpicks if you wish), but I think that with some tweaking, you have a potential FAC candidate here. Sasata (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated. This is my first major editorial contribution here, and I'm happy to have its nits picked!
Done. Deciduous linked, rather than deciduous forest, because the latter is a redirect to the former, sadly, and I cannot accurate link to one of the two disambiguated deciduous forest types (it occurs in both). Lead reworded to avoid stalk, as stipe is used otherwise throughout.
"fruiting body" The Dictionary of the Fungi uses fruit body instead of fruiting body, and this is the usage prevalent on Wikipedia (although both are used in the literature)
Done.
please give imperial conversions for metric measurements (either with the convert template or manually); check throughout article
Is this necessary? The MOS states that Imperial units are not required on science articles. At the very least, I think it would look odd to convert the centimeter measurements since the microscopy-scale sizes don't have an Imperial equivalent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squeamish Ossifrage (talk • contribs) 17:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd that the MOS says that, because the general practice is to include imperial conversions (for the convenience, I guess, of US readers); have a look at some species FAs and you'll see that this is the case (especially for articles where the species in question has a range that includes the US). I don't mind if you don't include them here, but expect this to be brought up at FAC if you decide to take this there. Sasata (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's the convention for metric units smaller than, say, centimeters, since there's not really a convenient Imperial unit to target? It feels weird providing conversions for some, but not all, of the units, especially where I've got both cm and mm sizes in a description. I may kick the can down the road on this problem and see what the FAC people want to do with it if I get to that point. Pesky units. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if a single measurement is less than a centimeter or so, probably don't bother with a conversion (use your discretion). In another article I'm working on, I removed all of the small conversions because, going by the principle that the # of sig figs going in should = those coming out, there's no difference between 3 mm and 2 mm, and it looks inconsistent to have conversions for some small measurements and not for others. Nevertheless, I expect this will be brought up at the FAC. Sasata (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the lead is too short for an article of this length, and does not yet adequately summarize the contents
Even among fungus FAs, lead length varies a great deal (I had used Lactarius indigo as my initial model). I still don't have a good sense for how long these are "supposed" to be, but I've tried to expand things a bit here.
One of the things on my to-do list is to go through all of "my" fungal FAs and standardize the formatting and other aspects; after a few years of writing these articles, the L. indigo lead looks short to me now. The lead for this article looks about right. Sasata (talk) 18:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy
link taxonomic
Done.
"Fungus pulverulentus virginianus caudice coralline topiario opere contorto" translation please?
Done. Or at least, I hope it's done. I've moved the original Latin to a footnote, as the MOS prefers that foreign-language quotations appear in article text solely in translation. Sadly, I can't find a sourced third-party translation, so I struck out on my own. Caudex is tree trunk, or, presumably, a mushroom stalk, but Plukenet uses it here in the ablative, so I'm not quite sure I've hit the mark, and review would be appreciated. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"that is "undoubtedly" C. cinnabarinum." not a fan of quoting without direct attribution; reword?
Reworded, problem solved.
consider giving the specific page number if the cited material is within a page range of about 20 pages or more in the source; saves the reader time. I usually put (see p. xx) in the pages parameter, but of course there's other ways to do this. With sources held at BDH, you can even link directly to the appropriate page.
Converted quite a few links to the appropriate page, and added a couple of "(see p. xx)"-style specifics to references where there was no other options. Hopefully, examining the article's references is a lot more convenient now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
if you use non-breaking spaces in abbreviated binomials, it prevent unsightly line breaks.
Done throughout.
species's -> both the singular and plural possessive are species'
Done.
consider merging the sentence about cinnabarina with the following to avoid a stubby paragraph
Essentially done. I attached it to the former paragraph, which is still discussing taxonomy and binomial synonyms, rather than the latter, which is about what people call it in English.
would Ancient Greek be a better link than Greek? Should the alpha be accented?
try to avoid in pushing headers and subheaders with images and cladograms
I think I've corrected this. Wikipedia formatting is not yet my strongest point.
link cladogram, phylogeny, morphological, clade
Done.
what DNA region is the cladogram phylogeny based on?
Done.
link C. ravenelii
Done.
"corresponds to its extreme morphological divergence." and "a faster rate of evolution" not sure why these snippets have to be quoted; rewrite in your own words?
Done.
"placed it in in order" fix
Done.
""atrotomentin, pulvinic acid derivatives, cyclopentanoids, [and] polyprenylquinones"" again, why the quotes? I think quotes should be reserved for text in which the flavour of the authors' words needs to be preserved (like the "small red tomato[es] surrounded by jelly" quote later). Please check throughout for other similar instances where the quotes could be removed.
Done at this location by just excising the list of non-notable compounds that I don't directly address further anyway. The wider audit is still in progress.
And now done throughout, except for a couple of specific cases which are addressed separately in this review.
do we need to know that Gruber and Steglich are from the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich?
Probably not, no.
link Boletus laetissimus and B. rufo-aureus (redlinks are ok; we'll fill 'em in eventually!); same with the taxa in "Similar species"
Done with the boletes and the Taiwanese species. Indirectly done with the other Calostoma, as they are now linked at first appearance.
link universal veil, buff
Done.
"Despite the physical similarity of C. cinnabarinum's peristome to earthstars, it lacks any form of ballistic spore dispersal." earthstars don't employ ballistospory either, so not sure why this comparison is here.
"Unlike others in the genus, the spores of C. cinnabarinum do not possess nurse cells." consider rewording to something like "Unlike others in the genus, C. cinnabarinum does not utilize nurse cells to supply food material to spores."
Done, and thanks!
""broadly obovate"" quotes unnecessary
Done.
gloss mesoperidium
Done.
Habitat …
link host, Appalachians, California, Massachusetts, Florida, Texas
Done. I linked the other countries as well on the assumption that if we're linking states, we should do the same for those. And fixed the spelling of Colombia while I was at it, which I have never gotten right in my life.
Culled the link to China at the least. I'm not really certain where the consensus line is drawn here; to me, Colombia seems at least as likely to deserve a link as California, but I'll defer to more established opinions if that's not the case. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uses
"Because the fruiting bodies begin development underground" the fact that they are initially hypogeous should be mentioned earlier (Description)
Done.
"Effraín Bautista-Nava and Ángel Moreno-Fuentes of the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Hidalgo" don't think this is necessary to mention
Done. I swear I remember reading an MOS page that claimed this was standard practice here and grumbling about it at the time I wrote it (same reason for the other university name-drop that I excised earlier). But I can't find it now, and it's clear that it isn't being applied in practice anyway, so happily clipped.
Refs
add publisher for MycoBank (and it needn't be italicized; I use the parameter "publisher=MycoBank. International Mycological Association")
check author format throughout, some have commas separating last name and initials, most don't
Done. At least, I think I got them all.
specify language for Nees von Esenbeck 1817; this is also available online
Done.
Schweinitz 1822 and 1832, Burnap 1897, Atkinson 1911 are at BDH; Corda 1842, Dallas 1900, de Bary 1887 @ Archive.org
Done. BDH was being uncooperative for me on the Schweinitz refs, but I found another place to source them. The 1822 one is particularly odd; it appears to have been published in two different versions in 1822: one in journal article format in Schriften der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu Leipzig and one apparently as a standalone publication. To make life more difficult, the two versions have different pagination. I'm sticking with the journal version in the absence of a reason to do otherwise.
all volumes of Mycologia before #100 are available at Cyberliber and you could provide convenience links
add doi for Danielson 1984; pmid for Morris 2008 & Smith 2007
Done.
citations should be given in numerical order
Not sure what you mean here. They display (or should) in numerical order, but are in alphabetical order in the markup for ease of maintenance. Is this contrary to practice? I believe I've seen at least a couple of FAs do this.
As an example, "gelatinous-stalked puffball",[24][18]" would be changed to "gelatinous-stalked puffball",[18][24]. This is so minor I'm almost embarrassed to bring it up, but it's something else that would come up (or be changed for you) at FAC. Sasata (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha! I couldn't find an MOS opinion on how to do this, so I'd been ordering them chronologically, but I suppose numerically looks better from a certain point of view. I've got (yet more) food to go consume, so assuming I don't explode, I'll get this done when I get back, along with fixing some more of the other concerns. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thorough examination. I'll be in and out (although likely more out than in) through the rest of the holiday weekend, but I'm starting the upgrade process now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to strikethrough things I have (or think I have) resolved, mostly just so I'm less likely to miss a line. If I've been overly ambitious in doing so, please let me know! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look great! I'm going to promote the article now, as it clearly meets the GA criteria. I have a few more nitpicks listed below that may help an FAC candidacy.
(no offense but) because of a non-standard font, the calostomal image appears to be of poor quality at the resolution displayed in the article; I'd suggest having the image redrawn per WP:CHEMS standards. My go-to guy with Chemdraw is User:YOSF0113; he is very helpful and fast. If he's not around there are many at WP:CHEM that would be able to redraw the structure for you.
No offense taken! That image is bad, and I feel bad for making it. YOSF0113 doesn't seem to be particularly active at the moment, but I'll drop by WP:CHEM and see if I can wrangle up someone who actually knows how to Chemdraw. Because that's sure not my line of work!
there should (per MOS:NBSP) be a non-breaking space between numbers and abbreviated units to prevent line breaks. If you eventually decide to use convert templates, these are inserted automatically.
I'm probably going to go ahead and bow to the convert template use. I support the position in the MOS over the current consensus at FAC, but that's a debate to flesh out on talk page(s), not by staking the quality of an article to a wikipolitical position. I'll make sure to nbsp the microscopic units while I'm at it, since they won't get converted.
"typically have 4 to 5 such ridges" per WP:NUMERAL, numbers less than ten should be spelled out
This will be fixed shortly.
there's still inconsistency throughout the article with the use of stipe or stalk
Yep, I need to audit this.
the internal structure pic is unfortunately overexposed, so that no details of the gleba can be seen. Consider replacing with one of the many excellent offerings at Mushroom Observer. These show the "amphibian egg" effect quite nicely. Similarly, one of these might be a better choice to illustrate C. ravenelii.
Yeah, I'm a little sad about that, too, but I think you're right about those Mushroom Observer pics being generally higher quality. Dan Molter's work always makes me insanely jealous; I think I could duplicate the technical quality of his images, but I've never seen a single specimen of anything as photogenic as any of dozens of the ones he's encountered.
The name huang noono doesn't sound Spanish to me; is it perhaps one of the other Meso-American languages spoken in Mexico?
Correct. I need to check with the source, determine which one, and make that explicit.
should probably mention that another possible reason for the gelatinous layer is to prevent desiccation; if you don't have a source that says this explicitly, you could use this: <ref name="Roberts 2011">{{cite book |author=Roberts P, Evans S. |title=The Book of Fungi |year=2011 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |location=Chicago, Illinois |page=511 |isbn=978-0226721170}}</ref>
Let me peek through my reference notes to see if I've got any other source for that, but one way or another, I'll get it in.
And let me just take a moment to thank you, both for the review itself and for all the advice and development you've also put into this article. It's absolutely appreciated. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
