Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lactarius indigo/archive1
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 03:10, 28 November 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I have a penchant for edible blue mushrooms. Perhaps it's the result of some synaptic rewiring that took place while watching the Smurfs as a kid. Anyway, the article is short, but comprehensive. Is it sweet? I'l let you decide. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technical comments
- All images in the article itself have alt text that looks good to me. Other images either have alt text or don't need it because they're unlinked and represented by other text nearby (like the Mycomorphbox), except for one: I tried to unlink {{fungiportal}}'s image so it wouldn't need an alt, but the protected parent template apparently doesn't even see the result of the documented "link" attribute. :(
- No dab links or dead external links, I'm glad to see.
- Ref dates are consistent ISO style. Cool.
--an odd name 05:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review - Copyrights check out and images have adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
Current ref 15 (Volk...) lacks a publisher. Also what makes this a reliable source?Current ref 17 (Kuo...) has the publisher run into the link title, it should be separate. We've already discussed reliability of this site before, right? Refresh my memory of which FAC it was, if indeed we have?Is current ref 26 (Sicard..) in French? Needs to be noted in the reference- : Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made the changes as requested. Regarding ref #15, Tom Volk is a well-known, highly published mycologist and long-time professor at the UW-Madison, so I trust the information he presents on his mushroom site. The MushroomExpert Website (ref #17) was discussed first here and later here. Sasata (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (moral or otherwise) disclosing that I am a wikiproject fungi member, I do feel that this article is as comprehensive, accessible and as easy/pleasurable to read as it can be. Can't see anything else obvious to include or change. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the prose tweaks, and the support! Sasata (talk) 03:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support As someone who knows nothing about mushrooms, I found this easy and enjoyable to read. It does a good job of explaining the technical terms, though the terms "cystidia" and "hyphae" could do with some help. What a shame the colour disappears with cooking. Is the heavy use of Google Books a reflection that the books you consulted have also been scanned by Google, or that you were only able to access a range of books via Google? If the latter, I'm slightly concerned about 1c ("a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic"). However, I'll trust Casliber's opinion on this. Colin°Talk 13:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a quite a collection of regional and national mushroom field guides; in general, they tend to repeat the same basic information about a particular species. Whenever possible, I source field guides that are also available on Google Books so that the interested reader can quickly verify the information, or just to make it easier for them to look for additional information. I admit I didn't look at any Chinese or Mexican sources, but I imagine they'd have the same information.... just in a language I don't understand :) I've embellished the microscopic characteristics section, hopefully it's more reader friendly. Thanks for the comments and your support. Sasata (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, Good read, no obvious problems Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.