Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Armillaria gallica/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:57, 22 March 2010 [1].

Armillaria gallica

[edit]

Armillaria gallica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

My latest FAC candidate describes a species with one notable individual on the short list of largest organisms on earth, a "humungous fungus" covering 37 acres and weighing 22,000 pounds. You should probably read the article before the fungus devours the planet. I believe the article is at a level comparable to other recent fungal FAs, and will quickly rectify any errors or omissions you might find. This is a Wikicup nomination. Sasata (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - nice article overall. A few comments

Lead
  • Para 1, sentence 2: "Commonly known as the humongous fungus, the species is a common" - repetition of the word "common" - maybe abundant...?
  • Same sentence - is "humongous fungus" really a common name for the species, or is it a common name for the clone in the UP? Not to mention, is it really a "common" way of referring to this species? "Common name" notwithstanding, I think "sometimes known as" would be more accurate than "commonly known as". (Note that if you accept this suggestion, the former one is moot.)
  • Same sentence "root rots or butt rots" - perhaps "[[root rot|root]] or [[butt rot]]s" Another thought - "root rots" or "root rot"? Obviously it depends on what you mean, but as I understand it, singular "root rot" refers to the general condition, while "root rots", plural, would apply to a number of types of root rot.
Taxonomy
  • Sentence 8:"In 1973, the French mycologist Henri Romagnesi, unaware of Velenovský's findings, published a description of the species Armillariella bulbosa based on species he had found near Compiègne and Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte in France"; but then sentence 12 says "Thus, both Romagnesi and Marxmüller proposed the name Armillaria gallica for "species E" and they are considered to have joint authorship".

    Should sentence 8 say A. gallica, or am I misunderstanding something here?

  • I admit the taxonomical history of this species was difficult for me to follow. I got the impression that Marxmüller simply made an error when naming this species and was trying to justify his mistake with some ICBN legalese mumbo-jumbo. I gave a quote from his paper to show his take on the matter, and reworded some other stuff. Does it make more sense now? Sasata (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also sentence 8 - "based on species he had found"?
Humongous fungus
  • Sentence 5, switch from Imperial units to metric.
Description
  • Continued use of metric
  • "2.5 to 9.5 cm (0.98 to 3.7 in)" - The unconverted measurements appear to be given to the nearest 0.5 cm, which would assume a precision of ±0.25 cm. The converted measurement in inches, on the other hand, appears to be given to the nearest 0.01 inch, which would assume a precision of ±0.005 inches, or about ±0.01 cm. This suggests a precision an order of magnitude greater it was actually measured (or at least 5x greater, if the actual measurement was to the nearest 0.1 cm). I would suggest replacing {{convert|2.5|to|9.5|cm|in|abbr=on}} with {{convert|2.5|to|9.5|cm|in|1|abbr=on}}
Bioluminescence
  • Any information on the mechanisms of bioluminescence or the biochemistry of it?
Bioluminescence
  • Para 1, sentence 4 - "two nucleus...stage" or "two-nucleate"? (Or "a stage with two nuclei")
  • Para 1, last sentence - I realise this is not your fault, but isn't the assertion that the species needs lots of genetic diversity to deal with unfavourable environmental conditions kinda undercut by the 1500-year-old individual in the UP?
  • My interpretation is that that particular individual has thrived for so long because its environmental conditions have been optimal, and it didn't need to express a lot of genetic diversity to become what it is today. Sasata (talk) 03:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Habitat and distribution
  • Para 1, sentence 2: "Mushrooms that appear to be terrestrial are attached to roots underneath the surface" - might it be helpful to specify "tree roots", otherwise someone who doesn't know much about fungi might think you're talking about the "roots" of the fungus.
  • Sentence 4: "In Scandinavia, it is not found in area with very cold climates, like Finland or Norway, but it is found in southern Sweden" - repeats "found"; maybe "is absent from areas with very cold climates..."?
  • Para 2, sentence 2: "In California, where it is widely distributed, the fungus is found in a variety of wildlife habitat types" - we plant ecologists prefer to call these "vegetation types" or "plant communities".
Parasitism
  • Para 1, sentence 1: "Armillaria gallica is a weaker pathogenic fungus" - how about "weaker pathogen"?
  • Same sentence: "and considered a secondary parasite". "and is considered"?
  • Sentence 3 - I would recommend splitting it into two sentences at the semi-colon.

Guettarda (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image Check: Passed - 6 images. 5 CC-by-SA, 1 PD-gov, all on Commons. Sources verify the CC-by-SA-ness of the images. Good job! --PresN 17:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from J Milburn

Probably missed the boat, but I'll see if I can spot anything :)

  • ("cobwebby", despite my intial doubts, is a word. I want to find an excuse to use that now.)
  • ("bioluminesce" is another fantastic word... I'm impressed with this article already)
  • "extremely low frequency stations" Radio stations, I assume? Perhaps a link to radio station?
  • Personally, I'd move "humongous fungus" to below the description, to bring it in line with other fungi articles.
  • "the species acquired the common name "humongous fungus"." The species? Or just that particular organism?
  • "The specific epithet of the previous name bulbosa is derived from the Latin word meaning "full of bulbs". Armillaria is from the Latin armilla, or "bracelet".[16]" Not sure this belongs here- perhaps better in taxonomy?
  • "The fungus has since become a popular tourist attraction in Michigan, and has inspired an annual "Humongous Fungus Fest" in Crystal Falls.[15]" More on this would be good- a fungus as a tourist attraction is worth talking about :)
  • Couldn't find much else to add... they have a parade and bake a 10-ft pizza. I did, however, add the Letterman Top Ten List appearance (and I so want to add #1: "Bill Clinton smoked it") as well as the U-Haul ad campaign. Ed has threatened get pictures of the festival, so maybe a DYK will appear sometime :) Sasata (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "membrane" Link? Probably constitutes a technical term.
  • "Armillaria gallica can produce cyclobutane-containing metabolites such as arnamiol,[23] a natural product that is classified as a sesquiterpenoid aryl ester.[24]" Does this have an use, either practically or in theory? Is this unusual? Common?

A very nice article, as usual, on a rather important fungi of interest to the non-mycologist. This will make a great addition to our fungal FAs. J Milburn (talk) 12:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. 'Tis nice, I agree. Needs a bit of cleaning up, though. I noticed these things, and I didn't read it all:

  • "It has also been inadvertently introduced to South Africa." But it wasn't inadvertently introduced into Asia, Nth Am or Europe, has it? Why "also"?
  • Comma after "structures" to mark the nested phrase before and after.
  • 1-kilometre
  • "and depending on their age, may be conical, to convex, to flattened"—bumpy commas. Perhaps "may vary from conical to convex to flattened shape."?
  • "The stem is 4 to 10 cm (1.6 to 3.9 in) long and 0.6 to 1.8 cm (0.24 to 0.71 in) thick, and almost club-shaped with the base reaching 1.3 to 2.7 cm (0.51 to 1.1 in) thick." You could make it much easier to read with en dashes. Readers will wonder why one is used a couple of seconds later.
  • The subsections in "Description" are a little stubby. Couldn't the subheadings be dispensed with and the whole section run on with the current paragraphing?
  • "two diploidization-haploidization events"—is this a transformation, a movement from, to? If so, an en dash is required. Tony (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments Tony, I've made changes per your suggestions above. I'm going to see if I can expand those subsections a bit; if not, will remove the subheadings. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded the two stubbiest subsections a little bit. Do you think they're sufficiently large to warrant existence as subsections now? I'm reluctant to merge them all together as they discuss topics that are so different. Sasata (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. An interesting fungus that is well covered in this article. (Resolved comments moved to talk.) Ucucha 03:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the workout, I can feel the burn. I think I might to able to squeeze in another pic now... Sasata (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the Microscopic features section, it opens with how the microscopic characteristics that may be used to help distinguish the fungus, and lists them, but leaves me confused as to which characteristics are distinctive (all of them?). This is touched on again (but not explained) in Similar species
I looked again to get an idea of different authors' opinions on the differences between A. gallica and its morphologically nearly-identical brother A. cepistipes. There's not a lot of difference between the two; spore- and hymenial cell size ranges seem to overlap, and in the one most recent study (Antonin 2009), it's not even clear if the tentative differences they describe can be generalized to global populations (they only sampled Czech and Slovak populations). So I removed the sentence; the reference is there for the serious student who wants more details. Sasata (talk) 22:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's good - it was somewhat incongruous otherwise. Well done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking pretty good - a hard article to make accessible to the public (the usual tightrope between exact meaning and lots of erudite words and loss of meaning), but a good job done. I massaged a little but nothing jumped out otherwise. Nearly there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Armillaria_gallica/archive1&oldid=1077424422"