Talk:Sarcoscypha coccinea/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We get to do some fiddling :) Cool! First round:

In the lead, sentence "The fungus has a widespread distribution in the northern hemisphere, and is found in Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania, and North America." Clarify: northern hemisphere and (also) Oceania? Then; mention possible antibiotic properties, though I'm guessing you did not for a reason. We'll go with you on either :)

Clarfied the distribution, and mentioned the uses in the lead. Sasata (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Tax and naming, lets put sentence "Although some authors have applied the generic name Plectania to the taxon following Karl Fuckel's 1870 name change (eg. Seaver, 1928; Kanouse, 1948; Nannfeldt, 1949; Le Gal, 1953), that name is now used for fungi with brown-black fruit bodies." before "It was given its current name by Jean Baptiste Émil Lambotte in 1889." so we get a more direct order of events.

Good idea, done. Sasata (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check. Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in this portion: "Sarcoscypha coccinea is the type species of the genus Sarcoscypha, having been first explicitly designated as so in 1931 by Clements and Shear. In 1990, the genus name Sarcoscypha was reported to have been used previously by Carl F.P. von Martius as the name of a tribe in the genus Peziza, which according to the rules of Botanical Nomenclature, had priority over the genus name Sarcoscypha. In 1990, the genus name Sarcoscypha was conserved against Peziza, with S. coccinea as the type, in order to "avoid the creation of a new generic name for the scarlet cups and also to avoid the disadvantageous loss of a generic name widely used in the popular and scientific literature"." Just make it read a little more chronological :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked this part and think it reads much better now. Sasata (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much better :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next up:

In image:Sarcoscypha coccinea pl 322.jpg, are the little branches each specimen is 'growing' on just for illustrative purposes? Also, I am rather fond of File:XN Ascomycete 00.jpg :)

Do you mean the green "branches"? That's moss, often found growing near the fungus. I'm wondering if I should make the expand the caption for this image to mention all the individual pictures, but am worried that the increased caption size will make the already large image even more awkward. Probably a good idea to include this info on the Commons page, so I'll do that at least. I also like that second image, but am reluctant to include it as the edges are laciniate (with jagged edges cut into irregular segments), and my research has not indicated that this feature is typical of this species (compare to Sarcoscypha occidentalis). Sasata (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very fine :) We'll go with you on these! Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Phylo, is this passage "...and degree of hair curliness." referring to the tomentum? If so, lets parenth-define up in this section, before we get to Descr..

Done. Sasata (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay! Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Anamorph, the segment "The International Code of Botanical Nomenclature permits the recognition of two (or more) names for one and the same organisms, one based on the teleomorph, the other(s) restricted to the anamorph. The anamorphic state of S. coccinea is Molliardiomyces eucoccinea, first described by Marin Molliard in 1904. In 1972, John W. Paden again described the anamorph, but like Molliard, failed to give a complete description of the species. In 1984, Paden created a new genus Molliardiomyces to contain the anamorphic forms of several Sarcoscypha species, with Molliardiomyces eucoccinea as the type species." A few questions:

Are anamorphic organisms ever referred to by their anamorphic names in general, or only within study/reference/discussion of them as anamorphs or within ~~anamorphology~~? Should M. eucoccinea be mentioned in the lead emboldened as a common name?

Its complicated. Even though they are the same organism, the rules of fungal taxonomy allow the anamorph form to be considered a separate species. It is, however, currently debated whether this scheme should be continued now that we can define species based on DNA sequences. WRT Wikipedia, there just hasn't been enough work done on any anamorphic species, so the Fungi Wikiproject hasn't discussed how we should handle the teleomorph/anamorph species. For now, in the absebce of a separate page for the anamorph (and there's barely enough info on it to warrant a separate page), and bold the anamorph name like you suggested and make a redirect to this article. Sasata (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's very good :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Marin Molliard->Molliardiomyces coincidental, or is Molliard a frenchman with so much "gaul" that he auto-eponymized an anamorphic genera? ;) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some mycologists have had no shame in naming taxa after themselves, but in this case it was the later mycologist renaming to honor the contributions of the former. Tweaked it a little so it should be more obvious: "In 1984, Paden created a new genus he named Molliardiomyces ...". Sasata (talk) 05:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good again! We've anotha pass! Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for another review! Sasata (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Sarcoscypha coccinea passes this review, and has been upgraded 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