Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Xeromphalina setulipes/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 14:07, 5 October 2011.

Xeromphalina setulipes

 * Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Xeromphalina is a genus of fungi not too distantly related to Mycena; Mycena is known for its fairly familiar and often pretty "bonnet" mushrooms. Xeromphalina setulipes is a species known from Spain, newly described in 2010. There aren't many sources, but the article covers all the bases, is (I hope) well written, and even has a free photograph from the mycologist who discovered the species. I look forward to your comments. J Milburn (talk) 20:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Copyscape checks - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. In fact, there are very few internet pages that are not copied from this article. :-) Graham Colm (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Use a consistent formatting for multi-author sources. Otherwise, looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Images: File:Xeromphalina setulipes (Ciudad Real-Fuencaliente-Holotypus).jpg was already published in Esteve-Raventós et al. (2010), which is copyrighted by "German Mycological Society and Springer 2010". The authors presumably had to sign a form before publication transferring copyright of the paper to the Society and Springer. Therefore, I think Esteve-Raventós may not actually have the right to release this picture. Ucucha (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I will contact Springer. J Milburn (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This image has now been removed and replaced by another image that has not been published as far as I can tell; images should now be good. Ucucha (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. The article looks good on all counts now. It's a pity you had to remove the image. Do the authors perhaps have other images of the fungus that they didn't use for the article? Ucucha (talk) 00:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is another one- I'm just in communication with the author about releasing it at this time. J Milburn (talk) 08:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Support and comments  no real problems, but the following caught my eye  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  05:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * the autumn month of November = "November"?
 *  5 to 7.3 micrometres (μm) &mdash; 5.0, I think, so that all figures in this bit are quoted to the same accuracy of 2 sf
 *  Province of Ciudad Real &mdash; "province" should be lc
 * Thanks for your support and comments. I've made the recommended changes. For reference, while the spore size is given only as "5" in the English description, it is given as "5.0" in the Latin description on the same page. J Milburn (talk) 10:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Support Comments not quite ready to support - mainly because of some jargon issues in the lead. Otherwise, it was fine.
 * The lead should be accessible to the non-specialist - so I'd expect not just a link to "type locality" but also a quick explanation in the text so that I don't have to click off to another article to understand the sentence. Same for cystidia and clades. Likewise avoid the use of "taxa" in the lead, as that is jargon.... species would work better, right?
 * Taxonomy: Spell out ITS
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. I've done my best to cut down on jargon in the lead. J Milburn (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Support - just a couple of minor comments that do not affect my support: A very nice little article - great work! Dana boomer (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if we could get a lead image that was less cluttered, but if this is the only one we have then I guess there's not much to do. Has Ucucha's image comment above been resolved?
 * I just received an email back a matter of minutes ago. Sadly, Springer are claiming that the copyright is theirs, and I strongly doubt that they would be willing to release it. I'm gonna try, but it's looking like this one will have to go unillustrated. J Milburn (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "and a taste that is not bitter". Probably not relevant to this article, but how do they determine the taste/edibility of a newly discovered mushroom species? Do they just pick some lucky intern and tell them to fry up dinner and see what happens?
 * The "taste" is actually a separate issue from the edibility. If I, as a mushroom hunter, come across a mushroom that I later want to identify, I can break it open and smell/taste the flesh- I suppose it is potentially dangerous. Some mushrooms have particular identifying tastes/smells- obviously, in this case, it's a potentially useful identifying characteristic. J Milburn (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your support and comments. J Milburn (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Has there been any resolution on the image? Karanacs (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly, Springer are claiming copyright on the image, and have directed me to the system they use for requesting permission for use. There is no way to request that the content is released under a free license, and it even notes (or, at least, strongly implies) that article authors are not copyright holders. Annoyingly, I'm fairly certain that they would give permission for the content to be used on Wikipedia only pretty much by default. I'm going to remove the image at this time. J Milburn (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

 Comments  by Sasata (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support with standard fungal COI caveat. Too bad about the image; any chance you could contact the authors and request another image that wasn't published in the journal article (I assume they took more than one of the fruit bodies...). Sasata (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * lead: link acidic soil, plant waste (forest floor or maybe detritus)
 * Done. Went for detrius, as forest floor is linked almost immediately before. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Internal transcribed spacer (in the cladogram caption) doesn't need to be capitalized
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Further research, analysing the ITS or RPB2 loci, could serve to help clarify the precise relationships of species and positions of clades within the genus." Does this run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL?
 * Saying it would serve to help clarify would probably do so. I have reworded to show that this is the opinion of Esteve-Raventós and co. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that 15 mm is converted to 0.59 in in the lead, but is 0.60 in the description
 * Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "The margin is typically not smooth; instead, it undulates." Undulate could be swapped out for the less jargony "wavy" or similar
 * I disagree- I don't think "undulates" is overly technical, and "wavey" comes across as a little colloquial. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "tobacco-brown" or "tobacco brown"?
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * gloss or reword crenulate
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "measure between 21 and 30 μm in length by 4.5 to 5.5 μm wide" -> change length to "long" or wide to "in width" to be consistent
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * link stain
 * Done. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


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