Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Albatrellus subrubescens/archive1


 * 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 10:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC).

Albatrellus subrubescens

 * Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this mushroom article is close to meeting the FA standards. It's relatively short, but I think I've got criteria 1b (comprehensive) and 1c (well-researched) covered, and the prose reads ok to me. I'll be grateful for any assistance in further refining the article. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sasata. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose This article mentions its bioactive qualities, but makes no mention as to human uses of such qualities. I can't imagine that a mushroom with such a notable feature would have no uses within medicine, or scientific research at the very least.  This should be covered, assuming the information exists, which again, I have to assume it does. Fieari (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what the "Bioactive compounds" section is about? --John (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The Bioactive compounds section already summarizes what is known about the bioactive properties of the compound scutigeral. There are no "human uses" for this chemical. Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not an actionable oppose as it is based on speculation rather than established facts, and it will not be taken into consideration when closing. Graham Colm (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look.
 * I assume it's the family article which is wrong, but is the order correct?
 * Order Russulales. I've fixed the genus and family articles. Sasata (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Josiah Lincoln Lowe later identified the species as Albatrellus confluens." Presumably, he incorrectly thought the name was a synonym of A. confluens? This could be clearer.
 * I've commented this statement out until I can get the source from the library and figure out exactly what I was trying to say. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Finally got a hold of the source; I've edited the sentence to clarify. Sasata (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "to the albatrellus clade," Lower case? No italics? I can see why you've done this, but it may stump some readers.
 * I'm following the formatting used in the source. Giving clade names in caps and italics might cause readers to confuse them with genus names. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Other Albatrellus species were transferred to segregate genera: A. fletti and A. confluens to Albatrellopsis; A. caeruleoporus and A. yasudae to Neoalbatrellus; A. pes-caprae and A. ellisii to an amended Scutiger." If they were transferred to new genera, why are you linking their old names?
 * I've pointed the links to the correct spots. Hopefully I can blue those redlinks by the end of this FAC. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "the pores are small (about 2–3 per millimeter), initially greenish-white, but later dark brown." Too listy?
 * Reworded. Sasata (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * When discussing the microscopic characteristics, you link separately to amyloid and amyloid (mycology), not defining "amyloid" but later defining "inamyloid".
 * It's now glossed on the first occurrence, and the dup link has been removed. Sasata (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Other closely related species include" If they're closely related, perhaps discussion belongs in the taxonomy section? Or were you meaning "similar"?
 * Changed to "similar". Sasata (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "These differ from A. subrubescens by the hairy" differ by a trait? That sounds like an odd construction to me. Ignore me if you think it's fine.
 * Reworded. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "several (usually between two and eight)" how about "several (typically no more than eight)". This avoids repetition of "usually", and doesn't imply that "several" may include numbers less than two!
 * Fixed. Sasata (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "It is strictly terrestrial, not found on wood." Sentence feels incomplete
 * Reworded. Sasata (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "two- and three-needle pines" Can we have some links for context?
 * Couldn't find a link, so glossed a definition. Sasata (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "writes that Arora "found many clumps of basidiomes in a half hectare area covered mainly by a mixture of Pinus attenuata, manzanita, huckleberry, and a few scattered mandrones."[13]" I don't mind this, but, as a warning, links within quotes should be avoided, according to the MoS.
 * I've paraphrased the quote. Sasata (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Images are fine.

Interesting stuff- how odd to have a polypore in mushroom shape. A strong article overall, though I've not delved into the sources. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Support. I'm happy with the responses, and another quick look through the article reveals no issues. J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Comments from Jim Just a few quibbles before I support  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  12:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * bruising reaction &mdash; unless this means something more technical than "when bruised", I'd prefer the simpler form
 * Simplified. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * bioactive chemical named scutigeral &mdash; I don't like "named " scutigeral, a bioactive chemical... 
 * Yes, I like that better too, changed. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * mycologist &mdash; link?
 * Done. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * molecularly defined &mdash; I know what you mean, but a couple more words might make the meaning more transparent
 * Done. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're missing a location for reference 6, but I'm more concerned that we need to be told what countries London, Milan and Stuttgart are in, but not Boston or Syracuse. Seems US-centric. Personally I've given up adding more than the town, just to avoid making judgements about notability.
 * I think I'll start doing that, as it simplifies the references, and will not hinder the reader's ability to find the source. Thanks for the comments. Sasata (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No further queries, changed to support above  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Support: My concerns were addressed. It appears to satisfy the featured article criteria so I'm supporting promotion. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Only two concerns:


 * The last sentence in the lede is ambiguous in what subject it is addressing: perhaps precede with a "This".
 * Now clarified. Sasata (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is inconsistent in how it labels individuals: some show the nationality and specialty, others not. In particular, Serge Audet and David Arora. Please address these two instances.
 * I try to be circumspect with giving these details, as almost everyone mentioned in these articles is a mycologist, and further details (like nationality) can be found in their respective articles. I usually make an exception, however, for whoever first described the species. I did add these details for Serge Audet, as a link is not available (or forthcoming). Sasata (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Otherwise I could find nothing to fault with the article. Nice work. Praemonitus (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. Sasata (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.