Talk:Mycena haematopus/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice... we can take care of everything in one hit! So, here we go:


 * In Tax and naming; the paragraph "The species was initially named Agaricus haematopus by Christian Hendrik Persoon in 1799, and later sanctioned under this name by Elias Magnus Fries in his 1821 Systema Mycologicum. The fungus gained its current name in 1871 when the German scientist Paul Kummer raised many of Fries's sub-groupings in Agaricus to the level of genus, including Mycena. Franklin Sumner Earle placed the species in Galactopus in 1909; a genus that is no longer considered separate from Mycena (as defined by Rolf Singer in 1951)."


 * hmm... in sentence "The fungus gained its current name in 1871 when the German scientist Paul Kummer raised many of Fries's sub-groupings in Agaricus to the level of genus, including Mycena.", slightly elaborate on Fries's sub-groupings, including so that the reader understands what the sub-groupings entail (sub-genus, etc.)
 * Done. Sasata (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Much better :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, in sentence "Franklin Sumner Earle placed the species in Galactopus in 1909; a genus that is no longer considered separate from Mycena (as defined by Rolf Singer in 1951).", does that mean Galactopus and Mycena are no longer considered separate within Singer's merged consideration, or solely as he defines Mycena?
 * I have no idea what you ask here (to be perfectly honest, your sentence makes no sense to me), but I'd be in favor of removing the mention of Singer (unless there's crucial info I'm missing). Discussions/mentions of different conceptions of a genus belong in that genus' article, not in individual species' article. Just mentioning that the segregation is not current anymore is more than sufficient for this article. Circéus (talk) 07:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * heh...actually, you "got" my meaning enough so that I don't need to rephrase; I see what you're saying about the nod to Singer actually needing to be removed there. I tend to agree. What we do here is; I am reviewing the article to get it to meet good article criteria by pointing out problematic areas that the nominating editor and any participating editor(s) may need to rewrite/rework/re-reference, etc., in order for the article to reach good article status. Once I believe and have verified that the criteria are met, I can pass the article. I'm currently waiting to see if Sasata and you need to decide what content the article will consist of while also taking my suggestions into account, and how they will be implemented. Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the Singer references, because I agree, Rolf Singer's contributions to the infrageneric classifications of Mycena are best left to the genus article. Sasata (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In Bioluminosity, anything on the biochemistry a' la glow? And, a little stretch of Edibility, if you've more factoids... heh
 * Couldn't really find anything else for edibility other than a couple more source repeating what was already said, but I did add a bit more to bioluminescence. Sasata (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok. Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In Natural products, define "pyrroloquinoline". Also, in segment "Additional alkaloid pigments were reported in 2008: haematopodin B, and mycenarubins D, E and F. Until the appearance of this publication, pyrroloquinoline alkaloids were considered to be rare in terrestrial sources.", clarify the publication that you're referring to :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Sasata (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: I hadn't taken good faith edits by Circeus into account at the time; my apologies, but plz. compensate however :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: I left a note to Circeus; I'll let you two work out the compromised version of what we review before continuing. Take as much extra time as needed :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Circeus has supplemented/corrected the etymology, and I think I've addressed his concern about haematopodin & its precursor pigment. Sasata (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Next up:


 * In Natural products, this sentence reads slightly off-track: "Although haematopodin occurs in only trace amounts in fresh fruit bodies, its precursor pigment is so chemically sensitive that its structure was not determinable with the techniques used in the original 1993 publication(ref?) that detected haematopodin, which is the first pyrroloquinoline alkaloid to be discovered in a fungus.". I'm not seeing how the technical inability to determine the precursor pigment of haematopodin in a 1993 journal is associated with trace amounts of haematopodin occurring in fresh (only?) M. haematopus. Clarify :)
 * I reorganized this section, how's it look now? Sasata (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Did some further rewriting. You might want to check the sources still make sense. Circéus (talk) 06:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, what is the final verdict on the ill-fated Culture characteristics section: "Although the identification and determination of mushrooms is largely based on morphological and anatomical characteristics of the fruit bodies, many species of fungi (including M. haematopus) grow on artificial media, and in some cases this can provide taxonomic characteristics to assist in identification or to help clarify fungal relationships. The surface mycelium of M. haematopus is whitish and fluffy. Swelling at the terminal tips of hyphae (diameter up to 12 µm) are present, but not very abundant, and monoliform are hyphae very rare. Bioluminescence is present, but weak. Extracellular oxidase enzymes are present." Incorporation of anything into Micro. characteristics, or total ejection? Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm comfortable with the current arrangement. I realize now a separate section for something as obscure as characteristics of culture growth was pushing it for a general encyclopedia :) Sasata (talk) 06:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't see why it warranted something separate from the general microscopic characteristics (especially as it was discussed with regard to telling species apart, hence the merge I effected). If you care to expound on that at my talk, I'd be curious what's the nuance. Circéus (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never tried adding a section for cultural characteristics before in a fungal species article, but in this case, a paper happened to be out there that had this information, and there's not a lot of other information available, so I thought that this paper should be mentioned in some way. Agree now that it's better as extra info in the microscopic characteristics section. Sasata (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, then... and really, since these are all of the issues I find and everything else is there; we're done! Nice working with both of ya' :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And thanks to you for reviewing this bloody mushroom! Sasata (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Results of review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Mycena haematopus 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:
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: