Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geastrum triplex/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 23:33, 20 February 2010 [1].

Geastrum triplex

[edit]

Geastrum triplex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

The collared earthstar is the largest, arguably the most common, and perhaps best-known of the 50 or so species of earthstar fungi. The recent availability of a number of high-quality photos inspired me to work on this article to bring up to (I hope) FA standards. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC) (I'm in the WikiCup.)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links, no dead external links, alt text present and good. Ucucha 12:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check: All 8 images are from Commons and marked as public domain or CC-by-SA. All of the attribution-required images have the photographer/artist listed. All of the images have a good caption that informs without speculation. --PresN 16:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Since you reviewed my article I should do the same. I will take a more in depth look after work, but I have some initial comments/questions, from the perspective of someone who knows very little about fungi.
    • is an inedible species of fungus belonging to - When I first read this I assumed that inedible meant poisonous, but later read tough and fibrous,[12] and of "no alimentary interest", when it occurred that they simply were not up to much gastronomically. Assuming that they are not poisonous and that many people like myself might assume that ineible mushrooms are poisonous, could/should this be clarified?
    • Description - seems to be entirely about the fruiting body. If memory serves mushrooms and toadstools are just the proverbial tip of the iceberg - most of the organism is below the surface. Would it not be good to discuss the rest of the organism, even in passing. If you find a Geastrum triplex fruiting body, how big is the colony/organism below?
    • Is there are reason the lead goes Taxonomy-range and habitat-description and the article is structured taxonomy-description-range and habitat?
  • I'll take a better look soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool. More thoughts...
    • The lead is improved, but still has a jump right at the start, where it does some describing, then jumps to a taxanomic segue, then back to description.
    • The explanation of nomenclature debate is a little hard to follow. It might be better worded something like ..This is because Geastrum indicum, a species described by Johann Friedrich Klotzsch in 1832 as Cycloderma indicum and then moved to Geastrum by Stephan Rauschert in 1959, may be the same species as Geastrum triplex.[9] If it is in fact the same species, the first published name
    • The infragenus bit is hard to follow. It is placed in three different infragenera? Is that a lot? How many infragenera are there? How closely related are the suggested infragenera?
    • Distribution - This is odd. The species is massively widespread, occurring across the whole world. Why did the German botanist have to go all the way up a mountain in Java to find the thing? When it could have been found in Belgium? Not that this doesn't happen (the widespread Richard's Pipit was described from New Zealand when it could have been described in Europe) but it seems odd. Also, is the entire distribution natural?
  • I concede the last point may be unactionable. More later. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made these edits to address your points above. Junghung was living in Indonesia at the time, so his discovery there wasn't unusual. As for the distribution being natural, to the best of my knowledge there hasn't been any phylogeographic studies performed that could shed light on the subject. Sasata (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oversight, now fixed; thanks for bringing it to my attention. Sasata (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • : I figured I might as well read it, and I'm glad I did. Some very partial comments (mostly from the description section): [see talk page for details] A reference quibbling (I had noticed that yesterday, but it ended up slipping my mind):
    • I must I am mystified by the presence of ref 9 (Geaster indicum at MycoBank). I keep re-reading the sentence without understanding what details it is supposed to source.

Circéus (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both reviewers for helpful comments and support. Sasata (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Another week, another fungus... I at least change back and forth between bishops to horses) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's essentially a condensed online version of two well-regarded guidebooks (one for Great Brittain, the other for North America) by Roger Pillips (hence the "Roger's" part). Circéus (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a "plant" person but is he an expert on the subject? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help being deeply amused by the suspiciousness inherent in this question. If the printed books were cited instead, nobody would even consider asking the question. FWIW the books are cited in FAs Amanita muscaria and Amanita phalloides, whereas the website is cited in Rhodotus (in which case it didn't seem to show on your sources radar, I might add). I'll leave it to Sasata, who is much more of a mycologist than I am, to do a detailed argumentation if that's needed. Circéus (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is, it isn't that difficult to create a page on the internet, and just citing something at the bottom doesn't necessarily make it correct, while something in a printed book is more likely to have at least gone through some sort of review, if only because a pubilshing house isn't going to want to spend money publishing something that isn't going to sell. And yes, I do indeed check the publishers of printed books to make sure they aren't self-published or through a vanity press. I do not claim to be perfect and catch everything either (grins). Granted, it's not like the information its citing is that controversial or anything, (it's a fungus article, afterall.. do you guys GET controversies?) but it's always better to be safe. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I can't find Phillip's professional qualifications on the net, so I don't know for sure that he is a "professional" mycologist, but he has been the author of several top-selling mushroom books, and is regularly invited as a guest speaker to mycological meetings. I trust his experience enough to cite his website as a source for general statement about distribution in this article. Sasata (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves, but I lean reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec mk. II) AFAICT by trade he's a photographer (several of his books are co-credited to Martyn Rix, who is a "proper" botanist), but he seems well regarded enough by associations to get regular invitations (e.g. the New Jersey Mycological Association here). I'll drop by the library to see if we can't just source the books themselves. From the catalog it looks like that although the titles are credited to him (as editor, I'd guess), he gets quite a bit of help, and I'd assume actual specialists do a signification portion of the actual writing/scientific revising. Circéus (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In any case I've replaced the citation with one to the book. There are several paragraphs of text on p. 4 (Acknowledgments) to demonstrate this is not just an amateur mycologist's undertaking and professional ones have had plenty to say abut it. Circéus (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Reliable enough, well organized and informative, meets all criteria... I think it's a great article. Dogposter 01:38, 19 February 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/Geastrum_triplex/archive1&oldid=1138461392"