Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meinhard Michael Moser/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22 October 2019 [1].

Meinhard Michael Moser[edit]

Nominator(s): Josh Milburn (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meinhard Moser was an Austrian mycologist best known for his work cataloguing European mushrooms, especially the difficult web caps. However, he also did important work elsewhere in the world (including South America) and on the ecological role mushrooms play in forests. He seems to have been an interesting character who led an eventful life, and he was held in very high esteem in mycological communities. I hope that I've done him justice in this article. I should say that I was inspired to nominate this here by Usernameunique's fascinating articles on 20th-century academics, and I owe thanks to Sasata, who will be remembered by FAC regulars as the "mushroom man" who wrote scores of fungal FAs during his time on Wikipedia from 2008-16. Thanks in advance for any comments. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suppoert Comments from Usernameunique[edit]

Infobox

Early life, university, and military service

  • Moser became an authorised mushroom controller — What's an authorised mushroom controller?
    • This puzzled me when I first read it. I assume it's some kind of governmental role, but I simply don't know. I've changed it to Moser became an "authorised mushroom controller and instructor", and was in turn directed to attend mycological seminars around Germany and Austria. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • he was officially requested — By the government?
  • some of the issues surrounding the large genus Cortinarius — Is "issue" a technical term?

England and the Federal Institute for Forestry Research

  • Two sentences beginning with "There, he" in the first paragraph
  • with the latter being sponsored by the naturalist Roger Phillips — What does it mean for the translation to be sponsored? Also, worth a red link?
    • I think it just means he paid for it. "Published", works, though - and is clearer! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "much used and appreciated field manual" ... "the most-used and most authoritative handbook on larger European fleshy fungi". — Whose words? Also, I'm not sure you need to hyphenate "most-used", but, given that you do, is there a reason why you didn't hyphenate "most authoritative"?
    • I've attributed the quotes. The hyphenation follows the original quote: "One very important feature is that each plate is keyed to the appropriate page in Meinhard Maser's treatment in Kleinen Kryptogamenflora, the most-used and most authoritative handbook on larger European fleshy fungi, and the taxonomy follows his treatment." Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are any of Moser's illustrations in the public domain, or do you think it's worth making a fair use case for one (I would probably say that such a case could be made, but we have different perspectives on the matter)?
    • I can't see any being public domain. I think a fair use claim could be made if I had a bit more about the importance of his work as an illustrator, but I think I'd rather use the space for photos of fungi anyway. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University of Innsbruck

  • In 1970, Moser became the president of the Austrian Mycological Society — Seems a bit out of place here
    • Point taken; I've made it a little more chronological. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • serving to encourage others to engage with Cortinarius in a meaningful way. — This is pretty vague
    • Adjusted.
  • It was a study of Cortinarius, Dermocybe, and Stephanopus, the latter described for the first time, in South America. — This is confusing, particularly the final clause. Stephanopus had been described before, but never in South America? If so, it could be clarified by removing the final comma, or adding a semicolon somewhere, perhaps after Stephanopus.
    • A study of three genera in South America, one of which was described for the first time. I'm pretty sure it's grammatically sound, but if it confused you, it will confuse others, so I've rewritten the sentence. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1983, in recognition of his forthcoming 60th birthday, an article dedicated to Moser was published in Sydowia. The piece, compiled by Franz Schinner, C. Furrer-Ziogas, and Horak, contained a detailed biography of Moser and a full bibliography of the 116 research publications he had authored or co-authored between 1949 and 1983. — Better suited under "Recognition"?
    • I could move the special issues to the recognition section, but I quite like them where they are as (if you like) "career highlights". Josh Milburn (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement and death

  • the earliest possible date — What exactly does this mean? Surely he could have retired earlier if he wanted, it just would have been disadvantageous to do so (pension, benefits, etc.)?
  • identifying 70 previously undocumented species, including some new to science. — So there were undocumented species that were not new to science? Does that mean that they were known, but no description had been published?
    • Undocumented from the region, basically. I've clarified. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7th International Congress — The 7th International Congress for underwater archaeology? On a more serious note (though the organization should still be clarified), it might be worth adding the dates—11–17 August 2002—to show how he remained engaged until weeks before his death.
    • Yes, good; I've expanded to give some flavour. It seems he was involved with four separate papers... Josh Milburn (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Research

  • Much of his research covered four key areas — And then only three, really, are listed.
  • "made the first successful steps" — Fairly generic language like could just be paraphrased instead of quoted, but if you prefer to quote, then whose words?

Personal life

  • was fluent in several languages — Such as?

Recognition

  • ((E. Horak) E. Horak) — Mistake?
    • No - it means Horak described it in one genus (in this case, in Phlegmacium) but subsequently moved it to a different genus (in this case, Cortinarius). Josh Milburn (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If interested, the Romanian article has a nice way of putting the 20-odd species/genera named after Moser into a chart.

Bibliography

  • The Italian article has what looks like a very comprehensive list of articles if you feel like some copy and paste is in order, but, especially with his significant output, I understand the desire to curate.
    • I don't really want to list every short comment he published - especially as he was so prolific! I have, however, added an external link to a relatively full list as an explanatory footnote. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • How do you feel about sfn footnotes?
    • I like them now, but I think I was a little intimidated when I first started writing the article (which, as you note, was - terrifyingly! - back in 2010). I'll think about switching them over. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cited texts

  • Any reason why sometimes just the first initial is given, and sometimes the full first name? I added the first name for Benkert, but note that there is still a source cited with Moser's full first name.
    • I suspect I was following how the author was named in the paper in question. I will, however, put some time into making it consistent. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reasons why some of these use citation templates and others do not?
    • Because the citation templates sometimes do things I don't want them to - some of these publications are in relatively unusual formats (e.g., a monograph published as a special issue of a journal(!)). I want them to be consistent/correct from the reader's point of view. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Hausknecht 2003 & Horak et al. 2003 use hyphens instead of en dashes for a reason (such as the actual article titles use hyphens), or is this inadvertent?
    • Good question. Not worth quibbling about, I suspect, so I've made them MOS-compliant! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

  • Looks good, J Milburn. Nice work on this—over the course of a decade! Comments above, and I'd recommend double checking my edits. On a funny note, I first read your description above as "Meinhard Moser was an Austrian misogynist best known for his work cataloguing European mushrooms". --Usernameunique (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks so much for taking the time to review this, and sorry my responses have been a little bitty. Your comments are undoubtedly useful. I was happy with many of your changes, but have tweaked a few others. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

CommentsSupport from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

His contributions to the Kleine Kryptogamenflora Mitteleuropas series of mycological guidebooks - shouldn't the German bit be in italics? (foreign words as italics)
Same issue with same work in body of text
published the first volume of the book series Farbatlas der Basidiomyzeten - same

Otherwise not much to complain about Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look - these are titles of series, and thus are proper nouns. From MOS:FOREIGNITALIC: "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to, for example, in the lead when the foreign name is included in parentheses after the English name; e.g.: Nuremberg (German: Nürnberg). See § Words as words, above." Josh Milburn (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, am not seeing any outstanding prose issues and I think it is comprehensive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources checked and working
  • Formats
  • Ref 25, Schinner et al: source gives a page range of 331–347. Can you be more specific?
  • No- I'm citing it to prove its own existence. The claim it's citing is: "In 1983, in recognition of his forthcoming 60th birthday, an article dedicated to Moser was published in Sydowia. The piece, compiled by Franz Schinner, C. Furrer-Ziogas, and Horak, contained a detailed biography of Moser and a full bibliography of the 116 research publications he had authored or co-authored between 1949 and 1983." Josh Milburn (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why has ref 29, Wasser 1995, got a page no, but not ref 30 to the same source?
  • Again, it was citing the paper as a whole. I've made this a little worse, and cited the whole volume as a primary source for claims about what the volume contains! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same issue with ref 35, Horak et al 2002. Other citations to this source carry page numbers.
  • This is just a reference confirming the existence of the paper mentioned in the prose. Again - primary source for the paper's own existence, if you like. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same issue with refs 36 and 37
  • In the list of cited texts, IMA (2002) appears to be out of alphabetical sequence
  • What is the language for the Benkert sources?
  • The third Horak source has Sydowia in the "journal=" field, but the link doesn't go there. Needs a pipe to Sydowia (journal)
  • Same issue in Schinner
  • Quality/reliability: All sources are high-quality and meet the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. Dealt with some, leave the others with me. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done, a long as you're happy with the slightly unusual citation of a whole volume of a journal (though it's a funny source - somewhere between an edited collection and a journal...). Thanks again! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk[edit]

  • Now that I'm finally done with Crusade, I have a bit more brain capacity to spare... Will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comments so far; appreciated. Sorry I missed this until now! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, there are a few duplinks which can be revealed with the usual script:[2]
    • Removed two; I'd rather keep the other if that's OK. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if footnote 1 should have a citation, such as the source it mentions?
  • "Moser was born on" Would be good to begin the article body with his full name?
  • "are some of the species the genus" In the genus?
    • Cortinarius, mentioned in the previous sentence. Do you think it could be clearer? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the word "in" seems to be missing from the sentence? Such as "are some of the species in the genus first described by Moser"? FunkMonk (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course; fixed. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[Water Relations in Higher Fungi with Special Emphasis on Forest-Fire Areas]" Why capitals here?
    • A thesis title would presumably follow the naming conventions of a book - so that would be italics and capital letters. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any info on his pre-capture war activities?
    • Not that I recall (beyond what I mention), but I'll need to look again. I'll get back to you. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "expertise in Ascomycetes" Shouldn't it be ascomycetes here?
  • Some persons mentioned are introduced with occupation, others not.
  • No partners or children? If not, could it be stated specifically if any source does?
    • I'm guessing not, but don't have a source, sadly. I assume it would be mentioned in the obituaries if he did... Josh Milburn (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is inconsistent US/UK spelling, with both color and honour, perhaps others.
    • Fixed one color; I believe it's honour but honorary in British English. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give Joe Ammirati's name in full a couple of times.
  • "Moser early progress towards" Something is wrong with this sentence.
    • Moser made. I've a feeling that was accurate until recently; I probably deleted something by accident... Josh Milburn (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Recognition you only give dates for genera, not species, is that a convention?
  • You say translator in the intro but interpreter in the article, though the terms are close, it's probably best to be consistent.
  • "who described around 500 new taxa" Seems to only be stated in the intro?
    • "Over the course of his career, Moser collected more than 25000 mycological specimens. He first described around 420 Cortinarius species and around 80 other species, including both agarics and boletes. He circumscribed three new genera..." Add them together and we get "around 500". Josh Milburn (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - not an expert on the subject or biographies, but the article has what I'd expect to see. FunkMonk (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • I'm doing this in the wrong order ... sorry about that, but better late than never. I generally like to get my mini-prose-support in early. I'm trying to get up to speed on a variety of botanical topics. I know it's a little strange to make the edits directly rather than commenting here ... I'm happy to do this in the normal way if you prefer. I like your edits so far, btw. Standard disclaimer: feel free to revert my copyediting at FAC anytime. - Dank (push to talk) 23:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ökologie is translated as "ecology" at leo.org. Anyone here a native German-speaker?
    • Ecology is basically the study of relations, so the translations certainly aren't far apart. "Water ecology" is not a term I've heard; I'm guessing it means something like "relations within the water cycle"; "aquatic ecology" is surely wrong. I'll go with water ecology, as that's a pretty direct translation. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Röhrlinge und Blätterpilze [Gilled and Pored Mushrooms]: It actually translates as "Pored and Gilled Mushrooms" ... I did a gsearch trying to find one page with both the German and English titles ... no luck. But if Gilled and Pored Mushrooms is an accepted English title for it, then that's fine.
  • Consider searching throughout for "a number of" and either deleting it or replacing it with something more specific. Some copyeditors don't like the term, and I think a case can be made that it's always ambiguous, at least on Wikipedia.
    • I've removed all but one. It's probably a phrase I should make a conscious effort to use less... Josh Milburn (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to some of his colleagues, "Moser was rather shy ..." ": This strikes me as ambiguous; it wasn't several people talking in unison. It might work best to paraphrase at least the first part of it, rather than quoting. That would make it more believable that it represents a general view.
    • Tweaked to remove the quote. I was trying to suggest that the quote was supported by what other colleagues had said, but you're right that this was clumsy. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:09, 20 October 2019 (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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Meinhard_Michael_Moser/archive1&oldid=922484844"