Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lactarius torminosus/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 GrahamColm 12:37, 6 May 2012 [1].

Lactarius torminosus

[edit]

Lactarius torminosus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lactarius torminosus is a widespread poisonous mushroom that is made palatable after suitable preparation, and enjoyed in certain eastern and northern European countries. I've exhausted my sources, copyedited to diminishing returns, and think the article is now ready for an FAC run. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment on criteria 1a/c/d/e, 2 and 4. As usual, a nearly spotless and extremely engaging article on an interesting species. I've read up till the "Development" section, and so far have only made a few minor stylistic and punctuation tweaks. Just one query: Why "northern Asia" yet "Northern Europe"? Great work, looking forward to reading the rest. Auree ★★ 19:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I've been keeping an eye on the (significant) changes made to this article since my support, and I believe the article still very much satisfies the criteria. Auree ★★ 22:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, finished reading through. I can detect no issues apart from these three minor quibbles:
  • This sentence was a bit difficult for me to parse: "Lactarius normandensis was described by Alexander H. Smith in 1960 to account for the North American species closely resembling L. torminosus, but having instead latex that changed color from white to yellow upon exposure, and that stained tissues and paper yellow." In particular, "the North American species closely resembling L. torminosus, but having" made me have to restart from the beginning.
  • "The intensely peppery taste of the raw mushroom can blister the tongue if sampled in sufficient quantity." Maybe it's just me, but the usage of "sufficient" here almost makes it sound as if the blistering would be a desired result.
  • "This chemical has a lactarane skeleton, similar to compounds found in other Lactarius species, such as L. deliciosus and L. blennius, which both contain blennin A, and Lactarius rufus, which has lactarorufin N and deoxydihydroketolactarorufin N." Bit of a run-on; any way to split this one up?
Never mind this, my tired eyes must've misread it. Auree ★★ 04:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are good, some nitpicks:

  • Some references are missing publication languages, e.g. 3
  • Ref 33: formatting inconsistency for issue number
  • Use a consistent date format (compare refs 1 and 35)
  • Will look over sources again tomorrow; eyes are tired right now. Auree ★★ 04:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me, the increased gustatory aspect of the article almost make me hungry (: And on that note, I am happy to support this candidate's promotion. Good luck, Auree ★★ 12:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Occasionally, white mycelium is present at the base of the stem - I'd say, "Occasionally, white mycelium is visible at the base of the stem" (I mean, it's always going to be present....)
the dense tomentum withers to sparse whitish fibers - is there any meaning lost by using "fur/hairs", or some other plain english word, for "tomentum"?
  • In this case, I'd like to leave it as is with the following justifications: I avoided using the term in the lead; it's glossed at the first occurrence; I explicitly used the word in the figure caption to provide a visual of what it means; furry or hairy doesn't quite convey the same meaning as "covered with short, dense, matted hairs". Sasata (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking very good on prose and comprehensiveness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks ok, although I do wonder in "four phylogenetically distinct clades" - whether "phylogenetically" is necessary - maybe "four distinct lineages"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - overall looks good. Just a few comments:

  • In the lead, the description in the last sentence of the variety is quite abrupt, given that there is no mention earlier in the lead of a variety existing. I think it would be more cl:ear to have a sentence or two earlier in the lead that further discusses the taxonomy of the species, the variety, related species, etc., so that a description of a variety is not quite so jarring.
  • Taxonomy, "bellyach" Is this the spelling of the source? I've always seen "bellyache", but realize that this could just be an old spelling.
  • Taxonomy, you say the species in this group are characterized by latex that doesn't change color or stain, yet later say the variety does both...
  • I'm surprised I missed this contradiction before. (... and reaffirms why I appreciate the extra eyes the FAC process brings!) Will think about how to present this and get back to you. Sasata (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reviewed the literature, and, if I'm not mistaken, it seems that by delegating this taxon as a variety of L. torminosus, Hesler and Smith violated their concept of subsection Piperites. I'm not sure I want to say this explicitly in the article, however, for fear of violating NOR, and making it seem like Wikipedia is presenting an editorial judgment about the taxonomical status of this variety by highlighting a possible error that no-one else seems to have reported yet. What I did was make to sure the origins of the taxonomic opinions are clearly stated (e.g. first by Smith 1960 and then Hesler and Smith 1979); readers can then make their own judgements about the validity of their infrageneric concepts (based on pre-molecular DNA understanding of fungal phylogeny). Does that seem like a good solution? Sasata (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once these are resolved, I look forward to supporting. Dana boomer (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've added a new paragraph outlining quite recent changes in taxonomy. Reviewers, please let me know if it is accessible, with an appropriate level of detail; more information will eventually find its way to the genus pages Lactarius and Lactifluus (in preparation). Sasata (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the new paragraph, although "A proposal to conserve Lactarius with L. torminosus as a conserved type" seems a little repetitive with conserve/conserved. Also, the new addition further reinforces my feeling that the lead is a bit short, and low on taxonomic detail, for an article of this length. Dana boomer (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point - we're not conserving the genus, but ensuring a larger bunch of taxa keep the name essentially - so need to think how to express that plainly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworded to use one less "conserved". Technically however (if I am understanding this fully), they are conserving the genus (or "reconserving", as L. piperatus was established as the type in the 1988 Code) with L. torminosus as the conserved type. Sasata (talk) 08:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images check out. J Milburn (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I did a copyedit and partial rewrites in bits, and I do have a bunch of comments for areas of improvement:

matters fully dealt with
  • Can we use group and link to clade in the taxonomy section instead of using the technical "clade" straight up?
  • Does the surface of adult specimen remains sticky? It said "initially", but failed to actually state if that changes. What is the exact term in use ("glutinous", "viscid" etc.), if any?
  • My sources fail to state explicitly if that changes with age (but I suspect it does). The source cited for that sentence uses "sticky", but a couple other use "viscid". Sasata (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is my "veil-like" wording accurate or is it considered an actual veil?
  • I know it's probably the term used by guides and technical, but I fail to see how "pale vinaceous" and "cream-tinged vinaceous" is supposed to be separable from, y'know, "pink".
  • "Occasionally, white mycelium is visible at the base of the stem." i.e. above the ground? A slight dose of WP:OBVIOUS may be called for here.
  • The "hymenium with granular hyaline contents." part is fairly confusing to me. Is it an additional description of the hymenium or referring to a specific type of hymenium in which macrocystidia are particularly abundant?
  • "[Pileis] surface is dry" Unless the cap remains sticky or this is relevant for distinguishing from other species, this is probably a bit unnecessary, especially since it's implied by "pruinose".
  • The only place I found "surface is dry" is in the description of the stem. I'd prefer to keep this statement, if only for the reason that several field guides also mention this fact. Sasata (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're going to mention the type material of L. t. var. nordmanensis, shouldn't you do the same with that of L. torminosus itself? (it's rather oblique, but it seems to be a plate designated in the 2010 conservation proposal)
  • I've removed the bit about where the type is currently kept as being too much detail for Wikipedia, but kept the rest (whereabouts of type location) as it helps explain the origin of the name of the variety. Sasata (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the caps of L. cilicioides are zoned"... isn't L. torminosus' also?
  • "The similar North American species L. villosus is white before becoming tinted with orange" Is that an exposure thing or an aging thing?
  • I've removed this sentence; upon further investigation I found that Bessette et al. in their 2009 Lactarius monograph have placed this is synonymy with L. pubescens, "because of a lack of sufficient distinguishing characteristics". Sasata (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hans Steidle reported that although the mushroom was not toxic to "unicellular and cold-blooded organisms"" Presumably, given what follow right after, that is "when ingested"? WP:OBVIOUS call.
  • Does the "rare" mushroom poisonings refers to fatal ones or just poisonings in general? Because it seems like it happened quite enough for the symptoms and the fact it typically resolves by itself to be well known.
  • Is 1-octen-3-one a typical compound in mushrooms? It would be a useful contextual information here if it were (its page describes it as a somewhat typical mushroom smelling compound).
  • Should we discuss the toxic compound first, maybe in, you know, the toxicity section?
  • It was a thought, because the information seems weirdly spread. Given that there is no standard recommended structure for fungi articles, maybe moving "Ecology, distribution, and habitat" up so toxicity is directly followed by chemistry? And at least consider inserting a mention that Velleral is the likely culprit in the toxicity section?
  • "wither to sparse whitish fibers" Farly sure they don't stop being trichome just because they were worn out to only a few
  • (Cystidia, not trichomes) I'm paraphrasing the wording from the source: "...bearded when young, white-fibrillose with age". Arora says "... hairs sparse or even absent in age." Do you have a suggestion for a better wording? Sasata (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's put it like this: if we are first characterising them as hair (implied with "tomentose", and then explicitly with "these hairs wither"), then that they are technically cystidia is irrelevant, isn't it? (though if you want, that a neat tidbit to put as an aside) Circéus (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe development ought to be moved out of "description".
  • two possibilities come to mind: an unsectioned paragraph at the end of the description (since it already includes elements of it by describing how it changes as it grows), or some in the "Ecology and distribution" section. BTW, it was tugging at my mind, but now I realize it really wants to drop "habitat", which feels encompassed by "ecology": three-topic section titles feel iffy. Circéus (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved up the development section as suggested. Trimmed habitat out of the section header. (Do you feel similarly about "Taxonomy, classification, and phylogeny"?) Sasata (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe a general statement regarding the similar species would be useful: i.e. how easy or hard are they to separate, whether this is considered a lot of lookalikes for the genus? Are any of the lookalikes closely related? As is it's really just a list turned into a paragraph, I know that kind of synoptic thing is hard to add without violating the original research policy, but it's what make a good guide really great.
  • I agree, it's hard to do this. I added a couple of sentences to open the section (said that sometimes microscopy is needed to distinguish similar species), and mentioned the one species that we know is closely related, but don't think I can stretch it much more than that. Sasata (talk) 18:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved up the development section as suggested. Trimmed habitat out of the section header. (Do you feel similarly about "Taxonomy, classification, and phylogeny"?) Sasata (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the description of the "stuffed" thing confusing, especially as the trama is discussed earlier. Consider discussing the trama separately instead of as element of these mushroom parts?
  • I swapped trama (in reference to the stem) for "The interior of the stem", does this help? (I prefer to keep discussion of the mushroom parts together, to have a presentation format consistent with other mushroom articles). Sasata (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Augh... I'm starting to think a picture would help (maybe linked to as a content note?). I cannot quite figure out what it's trying to say and it seems to contradict what I understand is a diagnostic character of Russulaceae. Circéus (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'.m not sure if it's just me or if the color of the bike shed at play where people just skip over what they can't understand (since I do understand a most of the technical stuff in there). Maybe it's a WP:Obvious issue because the article fails to say that there are two different texture of trama in the pileus? (indeed it turns out to be a technical term: "filled with a soft pith"). I think dropping "stuffed" in favor of describing two distinct texture of trama is best.

Circéus (talk) 02:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a thorough review and text massaging, Circéus. I will work on these points over the next few days. Sasata (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2012 (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/Lactarius_torminosus/archive1&oldid=1136458412"