Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Suillus pungens/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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [1].

Suillus pungens[edit]

Suillus pungens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suillus pungens is a (barely) edible mushroom found in coastal California. I think this article is up to par with the other three featured articles on Suillus species, and would like for it to join its fungal brethren. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media: Something of a worry: File:Suillus pungens 69689.jpg is currently listed on MO as NC only. Neither File:Suillus granulatus.jpg nor File:Elfenbeinroehrling.jpg have English descriptions. J Milburn (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a read through:

  • "Bishop pine" Why caps?
  • "one meaning of which means "pungent"" rephrase?
  • "Ponderosa Pine" Caps?
  • "the "pine spike" (Chroogomphus vinicolor)" Why common name? Also, note that the link goes to the genus article because of a redirect
  • "Gardes and Bruns" Perhaps give them something of an introduction the first time they're mentioned?
  • "Bonello and colleagues" Same

This is a very well written article; I think you get the balance of technical terminology with accessible English just about right. J Milburn (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review JM. I've taking care of most of the above comments (will fix that redirect soon by making a stub for the pine spike). About the image, this is another case of the user changing the license post-publication. I emailed the tech guy at Mushroom Observer to complain about this, and he agreed to start logging license changes so it will be less hassle for us to track what was licensed when; I'm not sure if the logging feature will work retroactively (I hope so, one of our featured pics by the same photographer is now apparently cc-by-nc). At any rate, I've removed the image for now and substituted another in its place. Sasata (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The logging at MO would be the best solution; what I thought of was a system similar to Flickr on Commons- that is, a bot or trusted user "confirms" the license. J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done.

  • Ref 10: page(s)?

Sources appear appropriately scholarly, though I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Will have to get back to you on this, it's an online reprint and they haven't included the page #'s from the original edition; I can probably track down someone with a paper copy though. Sasata (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All issues resolved. Ucucha 22:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Comments from Ucucha:[reply]

  • I think you are significantly overinterpreting the phylogenetic study of Kretzer et al. (1996). The tree shown in the article is apparently based on the neighbor-joining tree in the source—an algorithm whose only virtue is its speed. The source also shows a maximum-parsimony tree, which is less well-resolved, but should preferably be used. However, I would actually prefer that no cladogram be included. I think we should have a cladogram when there is consensus in the literature about a certain pattern of relationships; otherwise, we are effectively presenting a poorly supported hypothesis virtually as fact. The tree currently in the article is based on a single, 15-year-old molecular phylogenetic study, and most branches shown had very little statistical support even in that old study. I can't see how the statement "The results indicated that S. pungens is most closely related to S. collinitus and S. granulatus" in the text is supported by the reference.
  • I've been doing some reading about this very topic recently, and I agree completely. I've removed the cladogram (and will soon do so for other Suillus articles it's in). Regarding the statement, S. collinitus and S. granulatus are on the closest branches to S. pungens, and therefore, are the most closely related of the tested Suillus species. Am I overinterpreting this too? At any rate, I have reworded to hopefully avoid generalizing. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I would think "most closely related to" usually means "sister to", so even the current statement seems too much to me. The MP tree placed it in a polytomy with a whole lot of other species; perhaps those should be mentioned.

Ucucha 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, that's a better solution—done. Sasata (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "inequilateral in profile"—what does this mean?
  • added profile view (to distinguish from face view mentioned just before), is this sufficient? Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "inequilateral" a word you would expect the reader to know, though? Ucucha 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "ixotrichodermium" merit a link?
  • Don't think so, it's a subtopic of pileipellis (already linked in close proximity) and not worthy of a separate article. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a separate paragraph on chemical tests, but the previous paragraph already mentions a chemical test on the cystidia.
  • The paragraph describes macrochemical tests that can be performed in the field (rather than under your microscope); have made that explicit. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the taste of dishes cooked with the mushroom will assume its unpleasant odor"—the taste will assume an odor?
  • Well, it is more or less what the source says ("The harsh odor does not disappear upon cooking but rather becomes the taste of your dish."), but I've reworded. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Ponderosa pine not linked?
  • I'm sorry, I decided to add the link myself and then forgot to remove the item here. Ucucha 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really need to link "field studies"?
  • "A 1998 study by Pierluigi Bonello and colleagues showed the latter explanation to be true."—perhaps it would go into too much detail, but I think it would be interesting to add how he determined that.
  • To me, that doesn't explain why they thought the carbon-efficiency explanation was true. Reading the paper, it looks like they say that if it would invest more energy in fruiting and less in vegetative growth, you would expect small and transient genets, and if it is better at gathering carbon than other species, you would expect large, persistent genets. The latter is what they found. Ucucha 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added some words to this effect. Sasata (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gather it hasn't been found outside California? You don't explicitly say that, and its host pines apparently do reach Baja California.
  • Haven't seen any source that says its in Baja California; I haven't been explicit about where it's not because the sources just give where it is. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article currently says it's in the "Northwestern United States"; shouldn't that just be "California" in that case? Ucucha 12:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sources I found:
    • doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.02013.x
  • This was a proof of concept paper to demonstrated that it's possible to use position-specific labeled isotopes of glucose to draw inferences about metabolic flux in lipid biosynthetic pathways in EM fungi... I couldn't think of any general statement to draw from the study that the average reader would be interested in (or that was really specific to this fungus). Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This paper discusses changes in carbon sink strength of ectomycorrhizal fungi due to addition of nitrogen, and tries to draw generalizations based on these in vitro results; like the paper above, S. pungens is used as one of several examples of EM fungi. The takehome mesage is not so much about how this particular fungus works, but more about how the EM association works—I don't think there's anything in here that needs to be in the Wikipedia article. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The recolonization of S. pungens in post-fire EM fungal populations (only briefly mentioned in this article) was more fully investigated in the 2002 paper by the same primary author, so I don't think anything needs to be added from this. Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 02:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kindly for your incisive review! Sasata (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support and comments Usual high standard, I removed what looked like a redundant "the", couple of queries Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isolates — link or gloss, since this looks like a technical usage
  • broadly convex to convex — I'm not sure what this means
  • Support. I really can't find fault with this, it's an excellent article. Malleus Fatuorum 01:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the copyedits and support. Sasata (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So a source previously mentioned on this page's comments states that the dishes containing the mushroom will assume the odor of the mushroom. Does that mean that the taste could be "pleasant, resembling bananas" (a possible smell of the mushroom cited within the article) as opposed to unpleasant? Should the article be edited to reflect this? Also, is the source stating that the dish could assume the odor of the mushroom still in use in the article, out of curiosity? Micromann (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has already been edited to indicate that it "will assume an unpleasant taste"; the same source is still in use to cite this (Kuo's "100 Edible Mushrooms"). Sasata (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and comments Hello, this is the first time I've reviewed a featured article candidate and here's what I've got: (1) According to WP:Manual of Style#Serial Commas we should make a decision on the use of the serial comma in the article. (2) I made a small change to the prose but nothing major I don't think. (3) I changed "Iron sulphate" to "Iron(II) sulfate", but I'm not sure if this is the right thing to do. Wouldn't the American spelling be used since the rest of the article is in American English? (4) A "see also" section might be a good addition. Overall, it is a great article and I love to see more biology/science featured articles! Great work! Scientific29 (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Scientific29, thanks for the comments and support, and welcome to FAC reviewing! Replying to your points: (1) I'm a serial comma user, so if you see any violations, please point them out (or feel free to fix them yourself); (2) your prose tweak is fine with me (3) Yes, you are correct, I missed the Brit Eng spelling of sulfate—thanks (4) Do you have any suggestions for links to include (that are related to the subject but not already linked in the article?) Sasata (talk) 20:18, 10 July 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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Suillus_pungens/archive1&oldid=1046370305"