Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coprinellus micaceus/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 SandyGeorgia 18:23, 24 April 2010.

Coprinellus micaceus

 * Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Coprinellus micaceus is a very common edible mushroom worldwide, and depicted in most field guides. I created the stub a year ago tomorrow, and thought I'd celebrate its birthday with an FAC. I've been working on the article for some time, and believe it now meets the required standards. I look forward to hearing suggestions for further improvement. (This is a Wikicup nomination for me) Sasata (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Figured I Would Return The Favor
 * "The caps are marked with fine radial grooves that extend nearly to the center, and in young specimens especially, the surface is covered with glistening particles that are the inspiration for both the mushroom's species name as well as the common names mica cap, shiny cap, and glistening inky cap."--This sentence is a little wordy, perhaps it could be split up (or at least a colon can be placed after "common names").
 * I've reworded this a bit and split it up into two sentences. Sasata (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you already know this, but a "botanist" studies plants. I feel it would be best to include a disclamer in the "History and Taxonomy" section that explains this.
 * Fungi were thought to be plants until about a century or so ago, and "mycologists" of the "old days" were called botanists. I think it's ok as it stands, but will wait and see if anyone else comments about it. Sasata (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "[...] finally it flattens somewhat, becoming convex. When finally expanded [...]."--repetive (I know it's minor, but I really couldn't find much else wrong!).
 * Removed the repetition. Sasata (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Corynebacterium xerosis, Coprinus radians, and Coprinus quadrifidus are dead links.
 * Actually, they're redlinks, which are ok. But I don't much like redlinks either, so they'll be gone soon. Sasata (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the picture under the "Microscopic characteristics" subsection of the same species (or subspecies)?
 * It's probably the same species, or a very closely related species that matches the spore description. In the original description at Mushroom Observer, the uploader wasn't completely sure they were C. micaceus due to what he believed were inconsistencies in the physical attributes of his specimen and descriptions of the species he found from his sources. In any case, the spores are a match to C. micaceus. Sasata (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the whole thing, but I intend to. Hope this helps!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Every little bit helps make the article better. Thanks for your comments so far. Sasata (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments. Happy Wikibirthday C. micaceus. You have no dab links and no dead external links. Ucucha 20:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, your reasonings are sound. I feel comfortable with the red links, spore picture, and use of "botanist" as long as it is in reference to an older belief (i.e. I wouldn't refer to a current mycologist as a botanist).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Several More Concerns
 * The phrase "they appear more almond- or spindle-shaped" in the Microscopic characteristics seems to contain one or more dash malfunctions.
 * This is actually a case of a hanging hyphen, used when two compound adjectives are separated (see here for gory details of hyphen usage). But reading this guideline again, it seems that the Wikipedia MOS prefers the repetitive double use, so I've changed it to "... more almond-shaped or spindle-shaped". Sasata (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a way to link to the Micrometre page, for the metrically-challenged among us (I feel a grasp of the measurement is critical to understanding the Microscopic characteristics subsection).
 * Good catch. I usually link this at first usage, but missed it here. Sasata (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (Similar Species) "[...] almost indistinguishable from C. micaceus in the field; microscopy is need to tell the difference [...]"--needed?
 * Fixed. Sasata (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (Ecology, habitat and distribution) "[...] have been introduced relatively recently and have not yet had much time to develop genetic variation. [...]"--have not had enough time to?
 * Also fixed. Sasata (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Beyond this, I loved the article, well written, well researched, and plenty of images. I foresee no problems for this article in achieving FA.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I hope that's "no problems" rather than "two problems" :) (p.s. I took the liberty of converting your level 2 heading into bold; heading usage is discouraged at FAC) Sasata (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, right...You're very welcome.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 10:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Support. Issues addressed. Ucucha 04:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Informative and complete as usual. Ucucha 14:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC) Some points:
 * Is there a translation of Clusius's title? I would translate it as "History of rare plants. Brief history of fungi observed in Pannonia [Hungary].", but if a source gives a translation that would be better.
 * I hunted around for an English translation, but came up short-handed. I have inserted your translation. Sasata (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Link coprinoid fungi? There are already a few similar articles.
 * Good idea. Sasata (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "each thecae contained four series of spores"—wouldn't the singular be theca?
 * Latin is not my strong point. Changed. Sasata (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Buller thought that were formed in plates"—what were formed?
 * Fixed. Sasata (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "after a dewy knight."—nice touch. I think nights are more usually dewy than knights are.
 * Lol! Fixed Sasata (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Add South Africa to places where it's been collected.
 * Done. Sasata (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Category Fungi of Chile; article does not mention this.
 * Yup, removed. Sasata (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you want one for South America in general, though? Ucucha 17:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, added. Sasata (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Images look good.
 * What makes Kees Ulje's site a reliable source?
 * He was well-known as an authority on coprinoid fungi. There's an endorsement here, and I think I can find a similar statement from the academic literature if you prefer. Sasata (talk) 16:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That would generally be preferable, though I think your link is good enough to consider Ulje reliable. Ucucha 17:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * His obituary article in the journal Persoonia (2003) 18:151-52 also gives testament to his knowledge of and contributions to our knowledge of coprinoid fungi. Although the Kees Uljé Coprinus site is equivalent to a self-published site, he seems to meet the exception described in WP:V: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Sasata (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Something seems to be wrong with the Web of Knowledge site, will come back to check later.
 * Title: Diversity and significance of fungal endophytes from living stems of naturalized trees from Argentina
 * Author(s): de Errasti, A; Carmaran, CC; Novas, MV
 * Source: FUNGAL DIVERSITY  Volume: 41   Issue: 1   Pages: 29-40   Published:  2010
 * First record as an endophyte.
 * An endophyte lifestyle is a new ecological paradigm for coprinoid fungi, so its worth a mention, but I'll leave out details until others report similar results. Sasata (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Title: Comparative study of lectin activity of higher Basidiomycetes
 * Author(s): Mikiashvili, Nona; Elisashvili, Vladimir; Wasser, Solomon P., et al.
 * Source: International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms  Volume: 8   Issue: 1   Pages: 31-38   Published: 2006
 * I thought about it, but couldn't imagine lectin activity being inhibited by lactose to be of general interest. Sasata (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Title: Investigation of the antioxidant activity of some basidial macromycetes.
 * Author(s): Badalyan, S. M.; Gasparyan, A. V.; Garibyan, N. G.
 * Source: Mikologiya i Fitopatologiya  Volume: 37   Issue: 5   Pages: 63-68   Published: 2003
 * Antioxidant activity was tested, but was not particularly notable for this species, so I left it out. Sasata (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Title: Variable pressure scanning electron microscopy (VPSEM) investigations in mycology: Gill surfaces micromorphology
 * Author(s): Quaroni, S.; Saracchi, M.
 * Source: Micologia Italiana  Volume: 30   Issue: 2   Pages: 23-35   Published: August 2001
 * It's a cool-sounding technique, but I can't read Italian, and the abstract doesn't give much. Sasata (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Title: Notes on the lesser dung flies emerged from fungi in Japan (Diptera, Sphaeroceridae)
 * Author(s): Hayashi, Toshihiko; Tuno, Nobuko
 * Source: Medical Entomology and Zoology  Volume: 49   Issue: 4   Pages: 357-359   Published: Dec., 1998
 * I can't access this paper, but I think I've already got the "fungi as fly food" aspect covered sufficiently with other sources. Sasata (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 00:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - An interesting, well-written and informative article. Serves as a guide for both laymen like myself and experts interested in the more technical details. Only two comments:
 * One source notes it to be ideal for omelettes, another recommends it as a flavor for sauces, while another describes it as "a very delicate species easily spoiled by overcooking". - Is there another way to word this to avoid the "one source"-WP:WEASEL-type phrases?
 * Sure, reworded. Sasata (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A 2003 study failed to find any antibacterial activity in this species. - This could imply that the species does possess such activity, but the study simply failed to find it (even though I know it doesn't). Would you be okay with changing it to "did not find any"? – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's better, changed. Thanks for reading (& the support) Sasata (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - Absolutely well-written and, as far as I am concerned, error-free. I struggled to find the few small things that I was able to find.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support and comment sounds very similar to our Coprinopsis atramentaria which I've actually eaten. One query Its odor and taste are not distinctive seems at odds with the edibility section  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:26, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jim, I fixed the edibility in the mycobox. In the mushroom world, if it doesn't make you sick and approximates the taste of food, it's "edible". If some people think it tastes good, it's "choice"! Sasata (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments beginning a read through now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The fruit bodies of the saprobic fungus typically grow in clusters on or near rotting hardwood tree stumps or underground tree roots. - having 'fungus' again in 2nd sentence jars a little after first sentence, but not sure how it can be removed.
 * Changed saprobic fungus to saprobe. Sasata (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A similar sentiment has been raised about North American species - hmm, I tend to associate sentiment with an emotional state - maybe observation or hypothesis or some other emotionally neutral word is better.
 * Changed it to "inference". Sasata (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


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