Talk:Galerina

Galerina was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 15, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
April 12, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Confusion with Psilocybe?

According to my guide to mushrooms in Scandinavia Galerina (marginata) can be easily confused with Kuehneromyces mutabilis. No other confusion possibilities are mentioned and I see no obvious similarity with the Galerina species and the most common Psilocybe: P. semilanceata. However, I dont know all species of either genus, and it is certainly also possible that some foreign species could be confused. Anyway, please provide citation to back up any claims in the article, or I will remove the claim. Expert opinion highly welcome. Jens Nielsen 22:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

I have given the article my "expert" best. If anybody thinks it still needs something, give me a holler on my talk page. Peter G Werner 08:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is, in my view, an exemplary short article, detailed and technical but clearly written and interesting. Great work! I just made some stylistic revisions, mainly on the referencing which I converted to the very handy new markup style - see m:Cite.php.

Formatting issues

I must admit I'm a little confused. Maybe it's because of browser differences or something, but I can't see the "huge mess" you mentioned at Galerina. What exactly is the problem there? --Stemonitis 07:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't like the way the "References" section looks when "ref" format is applied. I strongly prefer to use a name/year system for references, as is standard in biology, with an alphabetical list of references at the end. Unfortunately, at present, Wikipedia doesn't have a reference format where one can end up with an alphabetical reference list. Also, the "^" tags in the Reference section knock everything in the reference list out of alignment.

Also, I don't know why you changed the taxobox around – the way you've set it up, it actually contains less information.

Basically, the way I had the page set up, everything was neat and my references were clear. Your reformatting made the page look unnecessarily messy – its would be one thing if your reformatting was necessary to add more information, but I don't think it was called for in this case. As I understand Wikipedia rules on citation of sources, one has some leeway in terms of citation and reference style – I think when I rewrote the article, I chose a very good citation and layout style where the information was presented in a clear and easy-to-access manner, and was consistent with the reference style for its scientific discipline. (The reference and citation style I use follows that of Mycologia very closely.) I don't get is just why the formating of the article needs to be changed, especially when it makes the page look messy. Peter G Werner 08:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.., well I guess "messy" is a subjective term. While there is indeed some leeway, all the high-quality articles I've seen (featured articles and so on) have used this sort of inline formatting, which is not standard for scientific journals, but Wikipedia is not a scientific journal. In your system, many of the references were given two different web-links, one inline, and a different one in the (unlinked) reference list. This is, at least, confusing.

As for the reduction of information in the taxobox, the only things I've taken out are the dates, which are not usually included under the ICBN. The description of there being "many" species hardly counts as information.

So, if your only real issue is an æsthetic dislike of the MediaWiki reference format, then I'll be tempted to return to my formatting, which is more in common with other Wikipedia articles, has greater functionality, and is easier to read, since the citation details are moved out of the body text. But I'll wait for your response before I make that change. --Stemonitis 08:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really do dislike the MediaWiki format, yes. I really do think the reference list looks bloody awful with that format applied - is there any way to make that format display better on the page? As for some of the inline references, those are mostly pointing to abstracts of articles when links to full text isn't available. Perhaps that might be better placed at the end of the references themselves as "Abstract available from: " The inline reference to the Northwest Forest Plan is there for a reason – its not a "citation" per se, but a page explaining what the Northwest Forest Plan is - I would have just as soon put a Wikipedia link there, but as of now, there is no Wikipedia article on the Northwest Forest Plan, so I put in an external link instead. As for the taxobox, I wasn't aware that dates weren't standard under ICBN – I guess remove them, if that's not the case. I think the subgenus names look better bolded and I think that should be kept. Adding a link to Franklin Sumner Earle only creates a redlink at present, so I'd just as soon not have a link there unless there's going to be a Wikipedia article on him soon. (In fact, I'd just as soon remove the link to "Cortinariaceae" for the time being.) Those are my thoughts on the matter, anyway. Peter G Werner 08:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An addendum – I was just looking at the Wikipedia Generic Citations page, and at the bottom of the page, they have have a template for a linked version of the Harvard reference style. When I have more time, I'd like to try it out on the "Galerina" page. In the meantime, if you really feel it would be an improvement, go ahead and change it to MediaWiki for the time being. Peter G Werner 09:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've kept the inline citations, but have changed the author citation style to more closely match the outline format given in Scientific Style and Format (6th edition). This come much closer to the reference style in use in journals such as Mycologia and Ecology, and is much cleaner and easy on the eye, IMO. I would appreciate that not get reverted without very good reason. I'll reformat the "Further reading" list to conform to the formating of the inline reference list. At some point (when I have a little more time to work on this article), I'm going to reformat citations according to the inline Harvard Reference style I discussed above.

I also changed a few things in the taxobox, and got rid of the redlink for "Cortinariaceae". (Actually, Galerina is being moved into a newly expanded Hymenogasteraceae, and I'm just waiting for valid publication before I make that change.) Peter G Werner 15:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No no, that all looks fine to me. We needn't be scared of red links, by the way. They encourage people to create missing articles, when they think, for instance, "What? There's no article about Frank Sumner Earle? Well, I'd better make one, then." --Stemonitis 07:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Staining Galerina

The article says "No Galerina has blue-staining tissue, though in some cases the flesh will blacken when handled, and this may be misinterpreted as a bluing reaction.^[1]". However the following article talks about Galerina Steglichii BESL which does stain blue due to the presence of psilocin: http://leda.lycaeum.org/?ID=10423 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan Rockefeller (talk • contribs) 20:03, 22 January 2007

I'll add a note about that – however, that's really unusual for a Galerina species, and to the best of my knowledge, Galerina steglichii is not a common mushroom. In other words, its not an exception that disqualifies the above rule. Peter G Werner 21:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Galerina/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I am nominating this for reassessment because it came up in discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyathus‎ as an older GA promotion that is now a deficient article on a couple of levels.

My primary complaint is that GAs now need at least one citation per paragraph to pass my standard of citation sufficiency. Each paragraph of an article structured well enough to be a GA-Class article should present a distinct topic and should have at least one citation for that topic.
1. I see that there has been significant editing without making much of a dent in this complaint.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article needs at least a two paragraph WP:LEAD. Thus we need more content in the LEAD.
Why is there a one line section? Do something about that.
At the FA level, I had requested a lot of information for Cyathus‎ in the FAC discussion mentioned above. I can not hold a GA to the same standard. However, I would like a summary statement about the 300 species in terms of their rarity, extinction, endangerment, etc. E.G., there have been 500 species of this, over 300 of which continue to exist, of these X# are rare/endangered. Alternatively, there are 300 species today, which is a sharp jump from X years ago when there were only Y known species. That would be a good sentence for a lead. In the text you could expand. In X region or climate type the number of known species has expanded due to yada yada.
Do you ever describe the lifespan of most species in this genus. Is it days, months, years?
1. Do these survive prolonged sub-freezing winter temperatures?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you ever explain what is the length of a generation? I.E., how often can reproduction occur?
What are the sizes of this genus. Do they range from a cm to an inch or do the get to be a foot high or in diameter?
Does this toxicity affect all life forms. Are there foragers who are immune to its toxins. I am trying to understand where it is in the food chain.
What are the nutrients that it thrives on?

I do not need the same breadth and depth I am attempting to coax at the FA level in the discussion mentioned above, but there is room for improvement here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of changing your list to a numbered one so that the points you bring up can be more easily assessed. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My response: 1 is well taken – referencing is inadequate, and points stated in the article need better referencing. 2 needs an intro that better summarizes the article, but I dispute that an article this length needs a two-paragraph lead. Lead length is related to article length, and this is not a long article. 3 strikes me as a bit of a quip – this information is in its own section because it really doesn't belong in the others. There is room for expansion of this section, but there really isn't much information on toxins other than X species contains Y. I find questions like 4-6 and 8-9 to be very naive and mycologically uninformed. First, fungi are not animals and defining things like "lifespan" and "generation time" is difficult at best, and in any even, such data simply do not exist for most species. Questions about what organisms the toxins affect (other than humans) are not well-understood and in any event are more relevant to the articles on the toxins themselves. Studies of nutrient needs for most organisms are generally focused on large taxonomic groups – there has been work on fungal physiology that has looked at the nutrient requirements of fungi in a generalized sense, perhaps broken down by ecotype, and generally using model organisms (eg, Neurospora), but the assumption that such data exists for a random genus of wild mushrooms is silly. As for size, I suppose I can be a bit more detailed about size range, but again, describing the size of fruiting bodies over an entire genus forces one to generalize a great deal. Also keep in mind that fruiting body size can be markedly affected by local environmental conditions, so fruiting bodies that are considerably larger or smaller than what would be considered typical are entirely possible.

One criticism I would add is that the article is not as current as it should be. There has been taxonomic work done in the last three years concerning Galerina that really belongs in the article.

Peter G Werner (talk) 09:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am mycologically uninformed. I was called in to comment on a FA for a related topic and this one came up. I do not know much about either, but am willing to assess whether the uninformed reader (E.G., a high school biology student doing a research project) would be satisfied. #1 is the primary complaint for a GAR. The rest is just stuff you can do to make it better since it is under scrutiny. Any of the remainder that you are able to respond to by improving the article will be helpful. I hope to see improvement on the article as opposed to debate here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This will fail if one is not addressed. I.E., either add citations or it will be delisted. After delisting your recourse is to accept or appeal to a broader spectrum of people at WP:GAR regarding my delisting for failing 1. Please make an effort on this front.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think 2 will need to be reevaluated at the conclusion of GAR editorial responses in the main body. The lead summarizes the body content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to think 3 is a problem.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your response discards number 4. I think there should be a statement made in response to that query.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this is a genus. Don't let me lead you down a wrong path on 7. Don't say anything misleading.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not qualified to assess almost any other points.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been delisted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kuo M. (2004). "Galerina marginata ("Galerina autumnalis")".

Why does "funeral bell" direct to this article?

I am not interested in this topic, but I searched the article, and the word "funeral" does not appear at all (and "bell" only appears once). Yet, inexplicably, a search for "funeral bell" sends the reader here. Any particular reason? If there isn't one, "funeral bell" should direct to Funeral, which discusses funeral bells. --Ben Culture (talk) 22:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Galerina marginata is also known as "funeral bell". Calanor~enwiki (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Galerina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718164412/http://www.cefe.cnrs.fr/subnamed/pdf/rapior/Rapior2004Mycologia.pdf to http://www.cefe.cnrs.fr/subnamed/pdf/rapior/Rapior2004Mycologia.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galerina vittiformis range?

The description of Galerina vittiformis describes the habitat but not the range (geographically). It has an inline tag {{where?}}. I did a little googling & it seems to have a similar range to Galerina autumnalis, temperate regions throughout the northern hemisphere plus maybe some alpine regions.^[1] But I'm not confident enough (or patient enough to check multiple sources), so I'm leaving it for a mycologist ;-) --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 01:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Boertmann, David; Knudsen, Henning. Arctic and Alpine Mycology 6. Medelelser om Grønland. p. 75. ISBN 978-87-635-12-77-0. Retrieved 27 July 2019.

[1] Kuo M. (2004). "Galerina marginata ("Galerina autumnalis")".

[2] Boertmann, David; Knudsen, Henning. Arctic and Alpine Mycology 6. Medelelser om Grønland. p. 75. ISBN 978-87-635-12-77-0. Retrieved 27 July 2019.

[1]

[1]