Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amanita muscaria


 * 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 Raul654 05:05, 11 March 2009.

Amanita muscaria

 * Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is comprehensive and of the standard of other successful candidates I have worked on. I will be happy to address points raised. It has been peer reviewed and had input from several other editors who have offered valuable input. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ref formatting/dab comments from  -- Ref issues found with WP:REFTOOLS script (copy and pasted here).
 * The following ref names are used twice for different refs, so that needs to be fixed accordingly.
 * fungimap Multiple references are given the same name
 * Ott76 Multiple references are given the same name


 * The dabs need to be fixed, as seen in the toolbox. -- TRU  CO   23:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have addressed the dablinks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have fixed both cases of ref names above. One was two separate refs, the other the same (but only one converted to cite format). Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ref formatting and dabs found up to speed.-- TRU  CO   01:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * Current ref 1 (Atkinson...) has just a bare url for a link...needs to be formatted with a title. (fixed, not sure how that happened)
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://pluto.njcc.com/~ret/amanita/mainaman.html
 * http://www.erowid.org/plants/amanitas/amanitas_writings3.shtml
 * My concern with this is do they have permission to excerpt the journal then? Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.mykoweb.com/index.html
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * the first is the website of two mycologists who are otherwise notable in the field and providing an organized and accessible summary of knowledge.


 * the second is a transcription of a published journal article. I believed cite rules indicate the cite should be of the web place not merely the journal. Good point about permission above. I will look into it. OK, let's stick with the book reference.

Comments from Sasata
 * the last is also a website with some connection to authority - a mycological group in the bay area. This last is not optimal but I didn't feel it was too controversial given the subject matter. I will have another look for alternatives. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "...in Switzerland is tsapi de diablhou, or "Devil's hat"." (not sure I think it needs an 'or', but added 'translated as' )


 * "...ha-ma chün, or "toad mushroom"" (not sure I think it needs an 'or', but added 'meaning' )


 * " Interestingly, the toad does not carry a negative connotation in Chinese culture..." NPOV (removed. I had pondered that one before)


 * "Wasson proposed this was due to its being a shamanic and also taboo object and hence unable to be named specifically in ancient Celtic culture." I don't follow the association between non-negative connotations in Chinese and ancient Celtic culture, implied at the beginning of the sentence. (I reorganized so Wasson's note on taboo follows the association with toad; the chinese segement follows better after the explanation - it was an aside really)


 * "The woodpecker of Mars is another unusual folk name." In what country? (that has well and truly eluded me! Do you think it better removed than incomplete?)


 * Well, the source is from High Times magazine ... Sasata (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you'd have to wonder about the veracity then. Maybe removing is a good idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * "...perpetuated its malign ed reputation..." (done)


 * "(= Amanita regalis (Fr.) Michael )" Author names in small font here but nowhere else. (I removed authority for regalis as others aren't listed either)


 * Am wondering if the conclusions from this ([]) recent paper should be mentioned in the Classification section. (whoa, interesting. I will take that to the talk page)


 * "... and North American populations. (Alaska contains examples of all three clades, leading to the hypothesis that this was the center of diversification of this species.)" Don't think it's correct to have a separate sentence parenthetically like this. (parentheses removed)


 * "Alaska contains examples of all three clades," Rather, they have species from all three clades. Probably need a better word than "contain", as well. Also, is there a source for this hypothesis that is mentioned? (ref 33 covers the paragraph. This is one of those situations where repeating the same ref at the end of each sentence looks odd I guess. PS: Tried to reword it)


 * "The study also looked at four named varieties of this species; var. alba, var. ..." Think the semicolon should be a colon. (yep. done)
 * "Although the amount and ratio of chemical compounds per mushroom varies widely from region to region and season to season, further confusing the issue." Not a proper sentence. (fixed)
 * Wikilink, wikt, or define globose. (linked to wikt)

Maybe "A. muscaria spores magnified with a microscope", but that sounds clumsy too. I'll let you figure it out :) (changed to more precis 'spores under 1000x magnification')
 * The gill attachment isn't mentioned in the description. (done (how'd I miss that?))
 * Ref 36 (Rogers) has "pp. p. 140.", probably from putting pp. in the citation tem plate. (fixed)
 * I don't like the figure caption "spores under microscopy", but I'm not sure exactly why. The construction just doesn't sound right.
 * Could you put a citation for the spore size; another book I have gives slightly different sizes and I think it's important to cit measurements like this. (good point, I opened a discussion on the article talk page)


 * Perhaps link iodine to Melzer's reagent for more amyloid info. (done)
 * I think it should be mentioned somewhere in the text that the species is mycorrhizal. (done)


 * "(3-hydroxy-5-aminomethy-1-isoxazole, an unsaturated cyclic hydroxamic acid) " --> wikilink to unsaturated. And methy should be methyl. (done x2)
 * "When sliced thinly, or chopped into thin dice and boiled in plentiful water until thoroughly cooked, it seems to be thoroughly detoxified." Perhaps replace a thoroughly? (just removed, maybe no need for an adverb there after all)


 * "The German physician and naturalist Georg Heinrich von Langsdorff wrote the earliest published account on how to detoxify this mushroom in 1823." In what book?


 * Tried to find this out myself, but no luck. Not that important. Sasata (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Refs 20 and 65 (and perhaps more, haven't check them all): Titles shouldn't be all caps (even if they were in the original). At least I read this somewhere else, correct me if I'm wrong. (ref 65 is german, nouns are capitalised. will check others)


 * There are several instances of Amanita muscaria not being italicized in the references. (I think I got them all..)


 * "The authors Arora and Rubel advocate..." (done)


 * "... as a several other popular edible species, " (done)


 * There's both Brit and Am spellings of color in the text. (gosh, I hadn't thought about that - ok US it is as we have -ized elsewhere)
 * References from journals have periods at the end, but those from books with page numbers don't&mdash;shouldn't they be consistent? (Picky I know, but this is FAC, right?)


 * Comments from
 * "and South America, where it usually occurs under introduced pine trees." Ref? (oops. done)
 * "The toxins in A. muscaria are water soluble. When sliced thinly, or chopped into thin dice and boiled in plentiful water until thoroughly cooked, it seems to be thoroughly detoxified.[65]" Short paragraph. (combined)
 * "It is also consumed as a food in parts of Japan. The most well-known current use as an edible mushroom is in Nagano Prefecture, Japan. There, it is primarily salted and pickled.[112]" Very short paragraph. (combined)
 * I was going to add this image (PD, artist died over 100 years ago) to the art section, but I now see the referencing is a little weak on it. That web source doesn't specifically mention A. muscaria or even Amanita at all, but it does mention a couple of other genera. The last few lines of the section are unreferenced. (I read over the art section a few times, and I think the last two setences are a bit off-topic and sound speculatory, so I just removed them, and then sunk that bit into section above)


 * The art section is now looking much better. However, this page, cited as a source, does not mention A. muscaria. It is explicitly mentioned on the other cited source, here, here, here, here and here. I reccomend removing the "fairy painting" article, and just add some more information from the other website- perhaps specifically mention the earliest uses, or the most notable paintings that use them. J Milburn (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A possible image to include that is mentioned in that source would be Ruebzahl by Moritz von Schwind.
 * Uploaded, added for discussion on the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments from
 * The lead needs to be rewritten to fit the guidelines of Lead section. Basically, all novel facts stated in the lead, but not in the body of the article need to be incorporated into the appropriate article sections. Once this is done, the whole lead should be rewritten so that it is a summary of the body of the article. (the relatively less important not on 1,3 diolein has been moved to the body, and ectomycorrhizal nature added to body of text. All points in kead are now in text. Are there other salient points in body you think need be in the lead? I added some recent genetic material - should I add more?)
 * I also took out the part about the Koryak, etc, since there's no need for such a specific point to be in the lead, and I've made the statements in the lead more general. There is still entire sections of the article that need some summarization in the lead, but that can wait until the article is in the final stage of FA work.


 * The illustration of spores under "Description" should be replaced with a better picture of spores and other hymenium features. The illustration should also be better placed than it is now. I will try to supply a picture like this, though in my area A. muscaria is a little past its peak season and I don't have any dried material handy. Nonetheless, I'll see what I can come up with. (thx +++. bit early here)


 * Many of the illustrations are redundant, in particular, we have multiple pictures of single A. muscaria. Illustrations that get more to the point of what is described in the sections, or at least illustrations showing a variety of growth stages of A. muscaria would better serve the article. A picture of an unopened A. muscaria "egg" would be a particularly good addition. (I removed one just now. There are two others I am vacillating on in the Distribution and habitat and Psychoactive use sections. I have been tramping around here after rain in the vain hope one pops up early so we can get an egg shot - with no success thus far.)


 * Support - besides the possible (silly) implication of the women in the "Psychoactive use" being put in a potentially bad spot through juxtaposition, I don't see any real problems with the page. It is late, so, I could be missing things. But yeah. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - quite well written and organized; however, one comment: I don't think the reader should have to get all the way to the 4th sentence before hitting the word mushroom -- how about using that instead of "fungus" in the first sentence? Looie496 (talk) 21:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (groan, this issue is very very tricky as the mushroom is the fruiting body, whereas the term 'fungus' can refer to the organism. This is always a headache for these articles....I do see where you're coming from though) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - my issue is minor. If it can be fixed, great, if not, no matter. This deserves to be featured regardless. J Milburn (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Interesting and informative. My last remaining point is minor (capitalization of titles). Sasata (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Significant image concerns as follows: The last is niggling; the first two should, however, be resolved before the article is promoted to be Wikipedia's best work. Jappalang (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Amanita muscaria spores.jpg &mdash; is Madjack74 John Roper? The pictures were uploaded to the Flickr account on the same day as to the Commons.  John Roper claims copyright on the photos.  Madjack74 has only uploaded Roper's Mushroom photo set; Roper has other sets, including a nature set taken with the same Nikon D40 camera.  Either one is a stalker of the other (in which case, Madjack74 seems more likely as the stalker), or they are the same person.  This needs to be cleared up.
 * File:Basket of Amanita muscaria.png &mdash; from his or her contributions, Pixel ;-) is obviously not William Rubel. This requires an OTRS, since Rubel copyrighted the contents of his site, 2006.
 * File:Ruebezahl (Moritz von Schwind).jpg &mdash; please point to the page that is hosting the image, not directly to the picture


 * The spore image has been removed due to questions on status. Our expert Peter G Werner was unhappy with the quality of the image and actualy went to a lab with some fly agaric yesterday and will be uploading a better one soon.


 * I note here that William Rubel is at least aware of the image and doesn't appear to have a problem with its use. I can try and contact him and get his permission in the proper format, alternatively as he has an account can he document this on the commons page? i.e. sign as his account? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be preferable if Rubel or his representative enters an OTRS. If his account is to document this on the Commons page, then either his user account has to be validated, or his website has to state his Wikipedia account (in Contacts or elsewhere) to prove the connection.  Although more convenient, I would discourage this if he desires privacy (protection of real-life identities, although this seems moot with the revelation here...); hence the recommendation of an OTRS.  Jappalang (talk) 12:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Image note; pls ping when this image issue is resolved. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ''OK, I have removed for the image for time being until the OTRS is sorted out - can always be readded once proper authorisation is obtained. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Calisber's action, the article has no image issues as of this version. Hopefully, the OTRS goes through and the image can be re-added later without concerns.  Jappalang (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.