Talk:Amanita ceciliae

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Amanita ceciliae/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasata (talk · contribs) 09:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It's hard for me to resist reviewing this ... I'll have my first set of comments up in a few days. Sasata (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment: 1st pass-through

Lead

• "Amanita ceciliae, commonly called snakeskin grisette and strangulated amanita in English," we already know that these words are in English, so stating this is unnecessary

 Done

• " …genus Amanita, section Vaginatae." Infrageneric taxa should be italicized, but I don't think the average reader cares enough about classification to warrant mentioning the section in the lead sentence

 Done. Removed.

Don't remove it completely, it should go in the Taxonomy section (suitably sourced, of course). If you can find the details (should be on Tulloss's site somewhere), you could add a few words about what characterizes that section and perhaps list some other species. Give the subsection too, if this mushroom has been classified that deeply. Sasata (talk) 09:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

See my edits here. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• "It is also called Cecilia's ringless amanita after Cecilia Berkeley, the wife of M. J. Berkeley.[2]" This looks like it should go in the Taxonomy and etymology section (and Miles Berkeley should be linked)

 Done.

• "a large fruiting body" Most of mushroom FA and GA articles use "fruit body" rather than fruiting body, per the usage advocated by the Dictionary of the Fungi (Kirk et al.). I won't impose my personal preferences on you, but thought you should know :)

 Done. Yup, I ought to know!

• link edible

 Done

• "but one must be cautious" this veers into WP:HOWTO territory

Couldn't understand, please explain.

Sorry! Wrong link ... try WP:NOTHOWTO. Basically, the article should not be telling people what they should or shouldn't do. Instead, reword more neutrally (e.g., something "field guides typically advise caution in selecting this species for consumption, due to risks of confusion with similar toxic species")

 Done That's suitable rewording. Thanks!

• the lead is a little short; how about some more details on the size of the cap and stipe?

 Done

There's not a spore on planet Earth that's 10 cm :) Sasata (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Truly, what a silly mistake!

Taxobox

• the taxobox should be trimmed to remove the subkingdom, subphylum, and subclass–this information isn't necessary for a species-level article

 Done

• please add the years for all synonyms to be consistent

 Added

Tax & etymology

• should link cryptogamist (not a common word); Christopher Edmund Broome; Louis Secretan

There is no such link to cryptogamist, I took the info from the Wikipedia article on Berkeley.  Done Rest two linked.

• the reader should be informed that the species was first named Agaricus ceciliae

 Done Found two more.

• "But in 1978 the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) declared the name as nomenclaturally incorrect." The code is not an entity, and cannot declare something incorrect; rather, a person uses the code to guide their nomenclatural decisions (in this case Miller et al.)

So what should be done about this?

• "The fungus was named Amanita strangulata by Swedish mycologist Elias Magnus Fries in 1974, and the name was accepted." ? Do you mean Demoulin? (Fries was long dead in 1974)

 Done the fact of A. strangulata being a synonym is not referenced. So I entirely removed it.

• link Cornelis Bas

 Done

Description

• "It is upturned, and has a deep margin." What is a deep margin?

 Done. Deep-colored.

• "It is gray to a brownish black in color, darkest in the center and growing paler towards the margin." grammar needs to be fixed

 Done. Removed 'growing'. Seemed to be causing all the trouble.

• "A. c. f. decolora and A. c. var. pallid." this needs to be made more reader friendly: what is f. and var.?

 Done Tried to.

• disambiguate gills

 Done

• "up to 2 cm (0.79 in) thick" make sure that the number of significant figures going into the convert is the same coming out; this is achieved by either specifying the # of decimal places, or by using the "sigfig" parameter (Template:convert has more details); check this throughout the article

Should this be applied to all measurements in the 'Description' (of fungus parts)?

Yes. Sasata (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I am having some trouble with this parameter. I need an example, could you help?

• "It is lightly stuffed and then hollow, there is a slight tapering to the top." average reader will not know what "stuffed" means; also, this is not a grammatically correct sentence

I am not much good at this, could you do this for me to learn? You can describe fungi better.

• I would add a definition parenthetically like so: "It is lightly stuffed (filled with a cottony tissue)" Sasata (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for rewording!

• link ring; amyloid; basidia; flesh; edible

 Done

• "But their edibility is still not made sure and it is not recommended.[2][10][14][15]" awkward sentence construction; the quad-citations don't make a good impression (especially after it states the mushroom is edible)

The edibility information is truly varying in all places; even I am at a loss about this. I put whatever I could know, majority of the sources consider it inedible.

• "Among these specimens, A. ceciliae and Pleurotus ostreatus were the two mushrooms which showed most powerful radical scavenging activities at 4.51 and 2.72 mg mL-1 respectively.[16]" OK, but what does these values actually mean? Perhaps the values should be left out and a more general statement about radical scavenging activity would suffice?

Perhaps you could understand them and provide a better statement than me? You know, I am not so specialized about all this.

Usually, these research articles contain some introductory paragraphs that provide background and outline the significance of the work they are doing. You can read this and summarize in a sentence or two why it's important. I'm assuming you have access to the research paper? (it's generally not a good idea to source from the abstracts alone, they don't provide enough context for one to really understand what the results mean) For now, removing the specific values would be a good start. Sasata (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This reference is there because it mentions the radial scavenging activity of A. ceciliae. In that case, I think that not mentioning these values would be better. So I remove them. (No need of PDF here)

• ""In some studies it was also found that A. ceciliae contains certain amounts of gold[17] and silver.[18]" This also needs some context. What is a "certain amount"? Does this mean the mushrooms have the ability to bioaccumulate metals from the environment?

I could provide more context, but for that access to the whole article is required, which I don't have.

See above. Statements like these without proper context cherry-picked from abstracts make the article worse, not better. I can email the PDFs to you if you like. Sasata (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Great if you have access to the PDF. You could mail them.

Ecology and habitat

• "In Europe, Amanita ceciliae is widely distributed from east to west and north to south" seems to me like the last eight words could be trimmed without losing any meaning

 Done. Looking fine?

• link deciduous forest

 Done

• link Pacific Northwest, Texas

 Done

• "They prefer mycorrhizal habitats including hardwoods and conifers." mycorrhizal is not a habitat, but a ecological association

 Done

• "They grow alone, scattered, or gregariously during summer and fall." Who is "they" (fruit bodies I think)

 Done. Refers to mushrooms.

Reference nitpicks (some of this is beyond GA criteria, so you can ignore):

• book titles should be title case; journal article titles are usually sentence case (although I admit this is a preference of mine and will not complain if you choose a different format)

I have kept the titles as I has found them on the websites.

The formatting needs to be consistent in the Wikipedia article. Please have a look at some other mushroom FAs or GAs to see what I mean. Sasata (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done I go as you say. About book titles, I have uniformly capitalized the first letters of all words in the titles.

• issues of Mycologia and Mycotaxon before approximately 2010 are available online at [[1]], and it benefits the reader to have these articles linked directly

This link appears as dead on my server. Good if you can link them.

• references need only be specified to year; day and month are extraneous (their inclusion will not help the reader to better find the reference)

 Done.

• journal citations should give the full page range, not just the first page (e.g. ref #4)

 Done.

• missing bibliographic details in ref #5

Sorry, could not find anymore.

If you don't have the source, you shouldn't be citing it (see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). Instead, cite the source that told you about this source.

 Done.

• ref #6 (Wild About Britain) doesn't qualify as a reliable source so a replacement source should be found for this information

 Done Is insignificant, removed.

• the formatting for the Mushroom Observer site is a bit off; there's no need to state "Retrieved from the MushroomExpert.Com Web site."; rather, the publisher field should be MushroomExpert.com

 Done.

• the author of ref #10 (Rogers Plants) is Roger Phillips

 Done.

• Rod Tulloss is probably the world authority on Amanitas; rather than his old site, the article should be citing here

 Done.

• italics needed for genus/species names in ref #12 & #18

 Done.

• publishers & location for refs 14 & 15?

 Done. Got only publishers, not locations.

• author name format is inconsistent for refs #15, #19; I think Guravich is spelled incorrectly

 Done. Guravich is the spelling given in the website, or what is available to me.

• author name format different in ref #16

 Done.

• page range format needs to be consistent (compare "41–4" vs. 396–407" vs. 272–73"

I did not quite understand. Did you mean it should be 41-44 or something?

The format should be consistent. It should be either

• "41–44", 272–273 (full page ranges given) or
• "41–4", 272–3 (give the minimum information required to identify the page range)

 Done Fine, the second option.

More comments

• there should be a citation for the common names snakeskin grisette and strangulated amanita
• the mushroom has also been reported in Asia, including Japan

Title: List of agaricoid fungi reported from subtropical area of Japan

Author(s): Neda, Hitoshi; Sato, Hiroki

Source: Nippon Kingakukai Kaiho Volume: 49 Issue: 1 Pages: 64-90 Published: JUN 1 2008

• ... Kashmir

Title: Mushrooms of Kashmir III.

Author(s): Gardezi, S. R. A.; Ayub, N.; Khan, S. M.

Source: Pakistan Journal of Phytopathology Volume: 14 Issue: 1 Pages: 23-31 Published: 2002

• ... and Iran

Title: Addition to the knowledge of Amanita (Agaricales, Pluteaceae) from iran

Author(s): Bahram, M.; Asef, M. R.; Zarre, Sh.; et al.

Source: Rostaniha Volume: 7 Issue: 2 Pages: 107-119 Published: 2006

• China has a species that resembles A. ceciliae, but differs in having a less robust fruit body and more brownish colors; probably worth a mention (see pp. 73–74 in this article)

I don't think this worth mentioning, as after all it is not the species we discuss here.Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

• should also mention that the North American distribution extends south into Mexico:

Title: Diversity of the genus Amanita in two areas with different forestry management in Ixtlan de Juarez, Oaxaca, Mexico

Foreign Title: Diversidad del genero, Amanita en dos areas con diferente condicion silvicola en Ixtlan de Juarez, Oaxaca, Mexico

Author(s): Villanueva-Jimenez, Emmanuel; Villegas-Rios, Margarita; Cifuentes-Blanco, Joaquin; et al.

Source: Revista Mexicana de Biodiversidad Volume: 77 Issue: 1 Pages: 17-22 Published: JUN 2006

See my overall edits here. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sasata. I have replied to some comments, will reply to others sometime later. Please help where I have requested you to reword (I am a terror at describing fungi, I think :D). I shall learn quickly then. And some sources are unavailable to me, I have mentioned them.

More problems fixed.--Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

More

• "The present name, Amanita ceciliae, was given by Cornelis Bas, a Dutch mycologist, in 1984.[5]" I checked this ref, and page 191 of Jenkins is the bibliography, and does not support the statement given. I would suggest just citing this to MycoBank (here), or to p. 75 of Jenkins, or both.

 Done

• "But in 1978 the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN) declared the name as nomenclaturally incorrect." It sounds odd to state the the Code declared something; how about something like this: "In 1978, the name was declared nomenclaturally incorrect according to the rules of International Code of Botanical Nomenclature." I think the use of the passive voice is justified here, as we're being intentionally vague as to who did the declaring; we know it was Stafleu et al., according to Miller et al., 1982; but this is not critical information here. Jenkins also confirms this, and mentions contravened rule was Article 23.6

 Done

• should probably mention who published the form royeri and when, and where it was found (info here)

 Done

• "Other such synonyms are"

 Done

• "It is also called Cecilia's ringless amanita after Cecilia Berkeley, the wife of M. J. Berkeley." consider adding a quote from Berkeley's original publication: "to record the services which have been rendered to Mycology by many excellent illustrations and in other ways". Stuff like this make the taxonomy section more interesting for the reader. Also, the journal for the Berkeley reference is Annals and Magazine of Natural History (not Journal of Natural History Series), and can be found here.

 Done

• "The stem is 7–18 cm (2.8–7.1 in) long, up to 2 cm (0.8 in) thick and 5–16 cm (2.0–6.3 in) × 0.7–1.5 cm (0.3–0.6 in)." why are there two different measurements?

 Done More consistent now

• Is Amanita sinicoflava the only lookalike? Where is it found?

 Done Made a new subsection "Lookalikes"

• what color is the spore print?

 Done

• how large and what shape are the basidia? Are they 2- or 4-spored?

Couldn't find info.

• I suggest moving the two sentences describing the flesh to the previous paragraph, as they are a macroscopic, not microscopic feature.

 Done

• suggest moving the Appalachian pic to the right to avoid pushing the "Ecology and habitat" header. Also, the pic itself seems to have too much green coloring, and could use some Photoshop cleanup; are you able to do this?

Moved the pic to right. No, I do not even have Photoshop on my computer.

I gave it try; results here. Sasata (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• "They are ecologically mycorrhizal, and habitats include hardwoods and conifers." hardwoods and conifers are not a habitat

 Done

• the end of the second paragraph in "Ecology and habitat" needs a citation

 Done

Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 03:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• the lead should mention the patches on the cap, and the color and characteristic texture of the stipe. The sentence about spores should mention their shape.

 Done

• Amanita borealisorora is a provisional name that has not yet been validly published, so this should be mentioned in the text. A. sorocula similarly doesn't show up at Index Fungorum or MycoBank, but according to the author it's a novum acceptum.

 Done

• "but its ellipsoid spores make quite much difference." not sure what this means; are they different in shape or size?

 Done In shape

• "The spores of A. ceciliae highly resemble those of A. cinctipes" any there any significant differences in fruit body morphology?

Could find none.

Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

• I checked the article on silver accumulation by Borovicka et al. (2007). They say that the mushroom "…did not exceed values typical for ectomycorrhizal fungi.", so I don't think there's anything worthwhile to include from this source. Similarly, the gold accumulation of the mushroom in the 2006 Borovicka paper shows no special bioaccumulating abilities for gold, so I think this can be also removed.

 Done Fine, removed.

• I don't think there's much value in including negative chemical reaction. Why single this one out and leave out all of the other various chemical tests the mushroom is also negative with? When this and the above is removed, there's not much left in this section, so how about moving the radical scavenging activity info to the edibility subsection?

 Done Of course, you know more.

• do you have the Jenkins (1986) source? There's more about micro characteristics that could be included from there. I think there's enough here for a GA, so don't worry about it if you don't (or I might add some myself)

Actually I took the info from whatever available on the web, so I don't have the source. You may add the useful information if you like.

And anyway, best of luck for the WikiCup! Less than a week left! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 06:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's time to conclude this review: I believe the article broadly meets meets the GA criteria 1, 2, and 3; images are properly licensed, and the article is both neutral and stable. Thanks for cheerfully tolerating my high expectations for mushroom articles; hopefully these comments will help you with your future submissions! Sasata (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)