Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lycoperdon echinatum/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 Karanacs 19:37, 25 May 2010.

Lycoperdon echinatum

 * Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is about a mushroom—an edible puffball with spines. I believe it's comprehensive and would make a good addition to the growing repertoire of fungal FACs. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments—no dab links, no dead external links. The lead seems on the short side, and do you really need those subsections for single paragraphs under "Description"? Ucucha 21:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't you be packing boxes or something? I've expanded the lead, but am reluctant to remove the subsection headers... I'm stuck in my ways and like to present the descriptive info in digestible chunks. I will remove them if others agree they should be gone, but those subsections will probably be expanded slightly over the course of the FAC anyway. Sasata (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing will prevent me from clicking the links in the toolbox. I think the "Description" is as digestible as the mushroom itself even without subsections, but I am fine with waiting to see what other reviewers think. Ucucha 22:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 *  Comments  I made two minor edits please check
 * Young specimens resemble another edible spiny puffball, Lycoperdon pulcherrimum, but this species does not turn brown as it ages. The fruit bodies are edible when young... &mdash; Slight ambiguity which species the fruit bodies belong to
 * Clarified.
 * Subsections &mdash; I don't like one-paragraph subsections either, and it's not consistent. On your reasoning "Habitat, distribution, and ecology" should have a subsection for each of the three aspects (but please don't go down that route)
 * Okay, I'm being swayed by the forces of consensus... I've removed the "Edibility" subsection header from the Description section, and bumped the "Similar species" sub into a section (would be somewhat out of place in the description section). Sasata (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This species has been collected from eastern central Africa,... &mdash; do we really need a reference for each area? I wouldn't have thought these were likely to be challenged
 * Unfortunately, I don't have a secondary source that give location information in as detailed a manner as I've done in the article, so I've had to compile it from mostly primary sources. I suppose I could just say "Europe" rather than listing each country individually with the source, and that would eliminate several refs. Is this preferable? Sasata (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we have any idea what substances are responsible for antibacterial activity?
 * Added a bit. Sasata (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * these are all pretty minor points, I look forward to supporting soon  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources look OK, no issues. Brianboulton (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, no further issues  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  15:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. Sasata (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Support. Good work as usual. Ucucha 14:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Comments:
 * Do you need a link for "bacteria" (not sure myself)?
 * Nah, removed. Sasata (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Does the Peck quote perhaps need a translation into understandable English? Also, what's the point of the ellipsis at the beginning of the quote?
 * Removed quote and put in my own words. Sasata (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Any information on when hoylei was synonymized, and where it is from?
 * I've been unable to find who synonymized it. I did add its type location and the collector's name. Sasata (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks. Now what's going on with hoylei vs. Hoylei? I'd expect that botanical nomenclature doesn't capitalize any species names. Ucucha 14:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not anymore, but in my understanding, back in the "old days" it was commonplace to capitalize epithets that were based on people's names. I'm just reporting the naming as it was published. Sasata (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Does it cluster with Hadkea to the exclusion of other Lycoperdon?
 * Nope, it clustered with the three other Lycoperdon species listed. It was separate from L. pyriforme, but that will be the subject of a different article. Sasata (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you should clarify that, as the current text makes it sounds like only this species clustered with Handkea in the Krüger and Gargas study. Ucucha 07:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it better now? Sasata (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "The specific name echinatum is derived from the Latin word meaning "with spikes"."—please cite. Echinos is Greek, at least.
 * Added. Sasata (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What is a pedicel?
 * Defined. Sasata (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A few references said to be in foreign languages don't have their original titles given.
 * I've done the best I can with this; there's a couple of original language titles missing, but those journals either don't have websites, or don't have those particular volumes indexed. Sasata (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ref Holden1997 is said to be from 1973.
 * Fixed. Sasata (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Is Kueng 1973 not in German?
 * Yes (and fixed ue to ü). Sasata (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 19:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Images and sources look good.
 * A few sources:
 * Title: KEY FOR DETERMINING SPECIES OF THE GENUS LYCOPERDON PRESENT IN SOUTHERN EUROPE
 * Author(s): DEMOULIN V
 * Source: Revista de Biologia (Lisbon)  Volume: 12   Issue: 1-2   Pages: 65-70   Published:  1980
 * Cannot access this one. Sasata (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Me neither, doesn't seem too promising. Ucucha 13:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Title: MACROMYCETES IN ARTIFICIAL STEPPE FORESTS
 * Author(s): DOBROVOL'SKII I A
 * Source: Lesovedenie  Issue: 1   Pages: 62-66   Published:  1977


 * Might be a Russian record?
 * Maybe, but I can't tell from the (non)abstract, and can't find confirmation from any other source that it's been found in Russia. Sasata (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The summary for Kers 1975 suggests it may have some interesting biological data in addition to the first Swedish record.
 * It's at my library, I might be able to check tomorrow. Sasata (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I found the source, but it's in Swedish, so I'm not getting much out of it. The English abstract hints that whatever conservation program was in effect in 1975 will "certainly result in a deterioration of most of the existing habitats for this ecologic group of fungi", but without reading the text I don't think there's anything I can add to the article. At least I was able to insert the Swedish title. Sasata (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a pity. Thanks for checking! Ucucha 07:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Title: CONTRIBUTION TO THE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF GASTEROMYCETES IN THE CZECHOSLOVAKIAN STREDOHORI MOUNTAINS PART 2
 * Author(s): KUBAT K
 * Source: Ceska Mykologie  Volume: 26   Issue: 4   Pages: 238-241   Published:  1972


 * The Stredohori Mountains are in the Czech Republic, which you don't have it as occurring in yet. Ucucha 19:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * At the risk of annoying Jim (see above), I have included it for the sake of consistency. Sasata (talk) 21:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Support comments  looking through and I'll jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * concomitantly transforming  - strikes me as needlessly polysyllabic - why not just "Initially white in color, the puffballs turn a dark brown as they mature, at the same time changing from nearly round to somewhat flattened shape."
 * Tweaked for reduced polysyllabicity. Sasata (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that it is edible, there is no section on eating it. It would be good to note whether one needs to cook it or can it be eaten raw, and does one eat the spines. Some suggested recipes or ways of eating it would be a bonus. I can check in Arora and other books later on tonight.
 * That info was previously cordoned off in a digestible subsection until consensus (see above) axed the headers. Your point about edibility of the spines is interesting, but I don't recall it being mentioned specifically during my research. Any additional information about edibility would have to apply to puffballs generally, but I'll look around and see what I can do. Thanks for the comments. Sasata (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I will see what I can find tonight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked again, but but couldn't find anything specific to this this species. The only decent info I found on ways of eating pertain to the giant puffballs (fry in butter if you can find a big enough frying pan). I did, however, add a standard "disclaimer" about slicing in half to check for gills. Does Carluccio have anything to say about puffballs? Sasata (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A little but useful general info, so added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise looks good pending these minor and easily surmountable tasks. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.