Talk:Phallus indusiatus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rcej, thanks for picking up the review again. Be as picky as you want, I'm intending to take this one to FA, and any help smoothing out the rough edges would be highly appreciated :) Sasata (talk) 06:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get downright disgusting ;) Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'll do this one in several installments, because I want to make sure I encompass the bioactivity area thoroughly, as its deliciously weightier than sometimes! For now:

In the lead, since you point out it has english common names, mention the predominant Japanese and/or non-english common name(s) if that applies.

I added the other two English common names, but left out the foreign language ones; since it's the English Wikipedia, I don't think we need to give 1st-paragraph prominence to the others. Another argument is that only common name redirects need be shown in the lead, and we don't have redirects for the foreign names. Sasata (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the caption for File:Phallus indusiatus.jpg, slightly describe the indusium/skirt we're seeing.

Done. Sasata (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Edibility, let's have all edibility content first, followed by nutrition. Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sasata (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next round:

The lead sentence "It is an edible mushroom used as an ingredient in Chinese haute cuisine, particularly that of Yunnan and Canton;" ...

That gives us a stronger sense of culinary prominence than is reflected in the edibility section, where that aspect reads more anecdotal. Also, there's no specific mention of those two regions of China in edibility, nor is taste mentioned. Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the specific reference of Yunnan and Canton cuisines from the lead, as I only have 1st-page preview of the source it (presumably) comes from; however, that book is in my university library, so I may be able to re-add later. I hope you like the other additions I made to the edibility section; that on-line PDF report I stumbled upon while surfing was a godsend. I could also add more info on specific dishes prepared with the fungus, but I think the balance is pretty good now. Do you think the picture of the Empress is too peripheral to this article? Sasata (talk) 19:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She feels so fitting there... good choice! With that and your rewrites and stuff, we have now fixed edibility completely. Nice work :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Bioactive compounds, sentence "In addition to possessing a peptide sequence dissimilar to other mushroom ribonucleases, it is also unusually sensitive to heat, has optimal enzyme activity at an acidic pH, and shows specificity towards RNAs containing sequences with stretches of uracil (polyU) and adenine (polyA)."

Are thermolability, enzyme activity at low pH, and specifity toward RNA containing sequences with stretches of U and A uncommonalities for mushrooms? And do you mean optimal enzyme activity is retained during acidic pH levels?

Nope, it's optimal at acidic pH—this is what makes it unusual, most "normal" enzymes have optimal activity at physiological pH (i.e. around 7). Sasata (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it reads as if RNA and uracil are uncommon associates. ;) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've played around with the wording of the biochemistry info, it makes sense to me, but tell me if it actually sounds worse :) Sasata (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much better! Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New q: Why edible and inedible in the mycomorphbox? May 'not eaten everywhere' = 'inedible'? Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copy/paste error (mmbox stolen from another Phallus article)... fixed. Sasata (talk) 04:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that's everything... I'm going to pass it! You've done a really fine job here! I look fwd to seeing it go FA :) Much success, Sasata! Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping me improve it! I've got a couple of papers on order that I want to integrate, and perhaps crop and add the left side of this diagram, but otherwise I think it's well on its way to FA. Sasata (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Phallus indusiatus passes this review, and has been promoted to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: Pass