Talk:Calostoma/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Starting to review the article based on Wikipedia:Good article criteria:

1. Well-written: (a) prose is clear, spelling/grammar is correct (b) complies with manual of style guidelines.
2. Factually accurate and verifiable:
3. Broad in its coverage: covers main topics Taxonomy, Description, Habitat and distribution, Species list
4. Neutral.
5. Stable.
6. Illustrated: 6 images, all Creative Commons + properly attributed.

Signed maclean (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Notes as I review:

• Intro Calostoma is currently classified in the Sclerodermatineae... versus Taxonomy Calostoma belongs to the suborder Sclerodermatineae... - there seems to be a significant difference in tone. The Intro states it more ambiguously while the Taxonomy is very certain.

I'm afraid I don't see the ambiguity. Comparing the two sentences:

lead: "Calostoma is currently classified in the Sclerodermatineae suborder of the Boletales."

tax: "Calostoma belongs to the suborder Sclerodermatineae in the Boletales order." I could take out the word "currently" from the lead if that's the the source of the problem. Sasata (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• When I read the word "currently" as an adjective I think it means something might (or is expected to) change in the future. Fair enough. However, the body sentence says "belongs to" with no uncertainty in there. Unless it is referring to a past re-classification to that suborder/order, I'd remove the "currently".

Sure, I'll remove it, no harm done. Sasata (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Kim M, Kim KW, Jung HS. (2007). "Morphological discretion of basidiospores of the puffball mushroom Calostoma by electron and atomic force microscopy". Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology 17 (10): 1721–26." - appears to have a dead link.

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• In Taxonomy, "between 52–115 Ma." - what does Ma refer to? The wikilink goes to a disambiguation page.

For clarity, I just changed it to "million years ago" as this unit is only used once in the article. Sasata (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sclerodermataceae is italicized in the intro, but not the infobox, is it supposed to be italicized?

Mistakenly italicized in the lead... fixed now. Sasata (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• In Ext.links, can a better description than "Hibbett Lab at Clark University" be provided for the clarku.edu link?

Done. Sasata (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• In "Species list", explain what the name and year refer to in the subsequent list.

Ok. Sasata (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• The MOS on 'list incorporation' urges against such lists as the Species list. I do not think it would be better as prose, but I can't help but think it would look better as a table. Is the Species list, as presented here, typical for genus articles? Are there any similar FA or GA that use this Species list format?

There aren't a lot of genus-level articles to compare to unfortunately. I wrote Cyathus, and the corresponding List of Cyathus species; I would have no issues with chopping out the species section here and similarly having a "See also" with a link to "List of Calostoma species", if you agree that's the way to go. Sasata (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'll review these. --maclean (talk) 04:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• The new table looks good. maclean (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• That's a tough call. List of Cyathus species is a nice list but I don't think the Calostoma "Species list" is overwhelming enough for such a split. --maclean (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Another question: is there anything on 'Human uses' or edibility that can be added to this article?

I might be able to find something, give me a couple of days. I'll also experiment with putting that species list into a table. Sasata (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As if an omen from above, a new paper has appeared (August 2009!) that discusses edibility of the type species C. cinnabarinum. Unfortunately, it's in Spanish, but I took as much as I could from the English abstract. Also included info about the pigment molecule from the same species. Have also converted the species list to table format... how does it look now? Sasata (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

• Just one question about an MOS issue. Otherwise only a few small issues, not required for GA status but would be best cleared up. -maclean (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Great work! Thanks for looking into the extra information. maclean (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for another review! I have a busy weekend of reviewing in front of me... Sasata (talk) 23:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)