Jump to content

Talk:Gomphus clavatus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleGomphus clavatus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 27, 2018.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 18, 2009Good article nomineeListed
October 8, 2016Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 21, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that "pig's ears", fungal species Gomphus clavatus, are the only Gomphus species in North America?
Current status: Featured article

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Gomphus clavatus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will be reviewing this article. (Full disclosure: Sasata and I had a discussion here about reviewing each other's articles. We'll still be impartial, though.) Comments will be left at this page within (probably) the next 48 hours. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the Taxonomy section: "Because of a reorganization of the genus Gomphus based on phylogenetic analyses of DNA sequences,[7] G. clavatus is currently the only Gomphus species in North America.[8]" – This sentence is a bit confusing...I understand what it means, but it's a bit awkward to read. I'm not sure if there's a good way to make it a bit clearer/smoother.
Done. Sasata (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Description section, you refer several times to the "fruiting body." I'm not sure what that means; is it jargon for the part of the plant where the fruit grows? Maybe it would help to link the term the first time it comes up (although, to be honest, the Sporocarp (fungi) and Ascocarp articles don't really make any sense to me, and thus might not be helpful for a lay reader), or to explain it with a brief appositive.
Done. Sasata (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, the Description section (especially the Microscopic Features subsection) is rather technical and a bit difficult for a non-specialist to follow. I don't think this is a huge deal, since this is the sort of article that's mainly supposed to be a technical description for people who already know how to talk about fungi....but still, if you could go through and make whatever minor changes you can to improve readability, that would be nice. (No need to do a massive rewrite and turn it into baby talk or anything; just simplifying the language here or there if there are places where that's easy to do without making major revisions).
Better (I hope). Sasata (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's about all I have now; I'll wait a few days so you have a chance to respond to these things, and then I can do the official review! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions look great! I know this is a pretty short review, but I think everything that needs to be covered has been covered and there are no significant deficits in the article. So here's the official review:
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Congratulations! rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pre FAC tinkering...

[edit]

"In the 18th and 19th centuries, G. clavatus was the type species—and only recognized member—of the genus Gomphus." - actually I am not sure this is true as for much of the time it was also placed in Cantharellus. @Sasata:, maybe this sentence should be removed? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Given this has already passed GA, might be a good one to punt next through FAC, after some massaging. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will move this to the top of my active pile. Will get back to you on the above after I reacquaint myself with the literature. Sasata (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I think a sentence or two would be ok; KOH is a common chemical and its use in the field is not so uncommon (I carry a bottle with me on hunting expeditions). I have a little more to add from my books, and intend to go through this list of older literature to see if there's any interesting tidbits to add. Should be done by tomorrow, then I think we're off to the races. Sasata (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok cool! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the article says the hymenium turns "dull orange to orange-brown when revived in KOH", the gill trama near the subhymenium turns yellow but fades, and the pileus has a layer of cells that turn brown with KOH, contrasting sharply with the cells of the flesh proper, which do not stain - this is in contrast with with P. pseudoclavatus, which is written, "The color reaction in KOH of the basidia and subhymenium is merely sordid yellowish to brownish and not very distinctive. The colored zone is not sharply delimited as in C.clavatus, and to this extent as well as in the darker reaction of the basidia of the latter, the KOH reaction is an aid to their recognition" Anyway, not sure where to insert this and happy to leave it up to you. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to let you know this is still on my mind ... the taxonomy section will need some work (e.g. see IF's synonymy, which has some names not accounted for here). Will probably end up moving some or most of that synonyms list to the article from the taxobox, similar to what we did in Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca. But I'm going to be distracted with other fungi for a bit :) Sasata (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough/no dramas - one critical ingredient for any of these articles is enthusiasm and a way forward..sometimes it's there and sometimes it just ain't. In any case, I might have a look at a few of the synonyms. I have become more interested in landscaping my garden so have been doing some more plant stuff lately. But collaborations are always good - if you are interested in buffing any of the bigger ones or ones I've worked on in the past let me know about collaborating. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sasata: I have added more info on synonyms...though I have no idea where Schmidel's original Clavaria truncata is from. Also confused about Kummer's use of Thelephora, which seems to predate the official authority...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on expanding the taxonomy section. It is pretty large, so would be nice to put a historical image in there somewhere to break up the wall of text. I'm travelling now and won't be able to do any serious research until next week.
  • Other things:
  • lead is too short, does not summarize the taxo section
  • similar species is sparse too; would be good to add specifically how Gomphus crassipes differs microscopically if we can find that
  • does not indicate that this is the type species of Gomphus. Sasata (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, some stuff to go on....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC) added the material. Will look for an image now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay @Sasata:, what you reckon now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gomphus clavatus. 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:

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) 12:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gomphus_clavatus&oldid=1200937391"