Talk:Phellinus ellipsoideus/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming this review; should have comments up in a couple days. Sasata (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. I'm interested in the possibility of FAC (and, for the record, I'm in the process of negotiating for images) so please be as rigorous as you can! (Also, in case you're wondering, the chemical constituents article can be found here, but, apart from the abstract, is in Chinese. I gather biochemistry is your area, so any thoughts you have there...) J Milburn (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments & suggestions

  • "woody fruit bodies which grow on dead wood" which->that
  • the fruit body is called alternatively "extremely large" and "very large" in the lead
  • "and is in reference to" -> "and refers to
  • "which are resupinate" which -> that
  • characterized - Brit Eng?
    • According to the OED, that is British English. The British zed-ophobia (zee-ophobia?) is a bit of a myth- we do spell some words with the s, and it looks better to my eyes, but certainly not all of them. J Milburn (talk) 10:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8 millimetres (0.31 in); 2 mm (0.079 in); 0.5 mm (0.020 in) -> each of the conversions has 1 more sig fig than the input
  • "which are ellipsoid or broadly ellipsoid" which -> that
  • "easily recognizable"; "easily identified" -> don't like the value-laden word "easily", perhaps readily?
    • Done. Probably not so "easy" for the non-mycologist. J Milburn (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was 5.25 μm, while the average width was 4.14 μm" should be present tense
  • "cystidoles" -> cystidioles
  • "but there a number of large rhomboid crystals throughout the hymenium and the flesh." missing word "are"; more detail needed here: how large is "large"? can I see it without a microscope?
    • Not specified, but I strongly doubt it. I've removed "large", as, without detail of what it is being compared to, it's pretty much useless. No details are given in the source. J Milburn (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The hyphae are divided into separate cells by septae, which lack clamp connections." the way it's phrased it sounds like it's explaining that the septa lack CC (incorrect), rather than the hyphae lacking CC (correct)
    • Done. The source material implies that the clamp connections were on the septae, which I thought odd when I was writing. J Milburn (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While the hyphae will darken when a solution of potassium hydroxide is applied (the KOH test), they remain essentially unchanged." suggest that "otherwise" is a better fit than "essentially"
    • Fair. I was trying to get across that, while there is a change, it's not a significant one (does not change the essential nature). Changed. J Milburn (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The main structure of the fruit body is comprised primarily of an agglutination (mass) of interwoven skeletal hyphae, which are golden- to rust-brown." perhaps "... comprises primarily an agglutination (mass) of interwoven golden- to rust-brown skeletal hyphae."
    • Changed, but to "comprises primarily of". Without the "of", we are saying that the fruit body comprises the hyphae, not the hyphae comprise the fruit body, surely? J Milburn (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a lumen that can be thick or narrow." -> "enveloping a lumen of variable thickness."
  • "the spores are spherical or nearly" + so
  • could all of the instances of upon be replaced with on ?
    • Done. "upon" sounds much nicer to my ears, but I'm happy to change it. J Milburn (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • what's a Cyclobalanopsis oak?
    • This is rather awkward. The description of the large fruit body says that the specimen was found on Cyclobalanopsis patelliformis, which, I gather, is synonymous with Quercus patelliformis (as Wikipedia seems to be going with the belief that Cyclobalanopsis is a subgenus of Quercus). You mention below that that name is synonymous with something else. I have a good source saying that it favours the wood of that particular "genus". We have a fair section on the subgenus- it's possible that it's considered its own genus in China, but nowhere else. I'll have a fiddle. J Milburn (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "F. ellipsoidea fruit bodies are perennial growers, meaning that they can, in the right circumstances, grow very large." should reword so that the part that comes after "meaning" is not taken as the definition of "perennial grower"
  • In 2010, Deng et al. reduced Quercus patelliformis to synonymy with Quercus asymetrica (probably best footnoted)
    • I've created an article on Q. asymetrica, and added an in-prose note about synonymy. I can do it another way if you think it would be an improvement. J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "up to 1,085 cm (35.60 ft) in length." would change "in length" to "long", to comply with the way units are given in the following sentence; similarly, "It was estimated to be between 400 and 500 kilograms (880 and 1,100 lb) in weight" -> "It was estimated to weigh between 400 and 500 kilograms (880 and 1,100 lb)"
  • no estimate of the circumference of the fruit body?
    • It's not a bracket, as such; it's more like Peniophora than Fomes or Ganoderma in shape, really. One of the images I may be able to get hold of will show this. J Milburn (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The specimen had an average of 49 pores per square millimetre, meaning that there were around 425 million pores at the time of discovery." Can we trim to "The specimen had an average of 49 pores per square millimetre, roughly equivalent to 425 million pores." (the "time of discovery" is implied in the beginning half of the sentence)
  • "Cui, Bao-Kai, Dai, Yu-Cheng" semicolon needed
  • the chemistry section leaves me wanting more… there's too much detail about the identity of the extraction solvents, and not enough about what these chemicals might actually do, and why we should care about them. Maybe you could ask somebody from Wikiproject China to translate the very last paragraph of the article, where the authors probably draw general conclusions about the compounds they've isolated, and maybe compare them with similar compounds from other species.
  • the editorial note to Dai and Cui makes the interesting estimate that the fruit body "may be capable of shedding one trillion basidiospores per day"
    • Honestly, that's only just been posted up, I think. I noticed it just now myself. Also a fair source for the Armillaria species you mention below (as it ties the two species, meaning I avoid synthesis). I'll try and incorporate some of it. Scatch that, they're mentioned in the article proper. ... And that's just a copy-paste from the article proper. Not my day. J Milburn (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be good to mention in a sentence or two Armillaria bulbosa and Armillaria solidipes (formerly Armillaria ostoyae) as candidates for largest "fungus", with a brief explanation that their status is based on mycelial area, rather than fruit body size

Translation[edit]

Danaman5 (talk · contribs) very kindly translated the last paragraph of the article for me. It's blockquoted below, but the bold-type face are words of which he is unsure. J Milburn (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steroidal chemical compounds are an important constituent part of cellular membranes; they can directly influence the mobility of the membrane, and play a part in cellular membranes’ physiological function of distinguishing and regulating cells. (Parks & Casey 1995; Bloch 1992; Weete 1989) Therefore, steroidal chemical compounds demonstrate excellent pharmacological activity. For example, ergosterol and hydrogenated ergosterol have a clear inhibiting effect on MCF-7 tumor cell precursors (Ding et. al. 2009); ergosterol-7; 22-alkene, 3(Beta)-Alcohol also shows clear activity against BEL-7402 and MGC-803 tumor cell precursors (Lu Yi and Weng Xinchu 2007); ergosterol-7, 22-diene-3-ketone has excellent anti-inflammatory activity (Deng Zhipeng 2004). In addition, steroidal components are very important in taxology. Generally, speaking, cholesterol is the main steroidal component of relatively primitive fungoid groups, and ergosterol is the main steroidal component of relatively advanced fungoid groups (Weete 1989). This research result shows that Fomitiporia ellipsoidea fruiting bodies contain abundant and diverse steroidal chemical compounds, indicating that this fungus may have relatively strong pharmacological activity. Therefore, there is a need to carry out deeper research on the activity of the steroidal chemical compounds or steroidal ramifications discussed in this paper, as well as on other mid-level components, and so on.

I have added some details from this paragraph. It's not something I can pretend to know about, but I don't think I've made any mistakes. J Milburn (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the "ramification" in "steroidal ramifications" in my translation refers to a specific chemistry term for "A type of complex compound, where simple hydrogen or a radical in a simple compound molecule is replaced." (according to my Chinese dictionary) It is not the more common "ramification" that means "effect, meaning, outcome". Other than that, I think your additions match up with the translation. (I do not have a background in these topics either)--Danaman5 (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing the translation! Sasata (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • there's now a repetition of "very large", "largest", and "very large" in consecutive sentences. I haven't had enough coffee yet to make any useful suggestions myself, but you might want to find a way to express this more elegantly before FAC
  • "and extending 8 millimetres (0.3 in) from the wood from which they grow" -> perhaps "on which" to avoid repetition
  • "8 mm (0.31 in)" needs sig figging
  • I'd consider renaming "Chemistry and pharmacology" to just "Chemistry"; the pharmacological applications (of the species-specific compounds isolated) are largely theoretical, and the simpler heading is sufficient, I think
  • "Two of the compounds, one from the petroleum ether extract and a second from the chloroform extract, were new to science.' How about dropping the solvent specifics, and instead giving the names of the new compounds, viz. "Two of the compounds, ergosta-7,22,25-triene-3-one and benzo[1,2-b:5,4-b']difuran-3,5-dione-8-methyl formate, were new to science."
  • "Steroidal compounds play important physiological roles in cell membranes, which means that some act as anti-inflammatories (including ergosterol) or inhibit tumour growth." the "which means" sounds to me too much like a definition, rather than giving an example; how about something like "Steroidal compounds play important physiological roles in cell membranes; some act as anti-inflammatories (including ergosterol) or inhibit tumour growth."
    • I've rejigged the surrounding sentences a little- better? J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this were FAC I might whine about consecutive sentences with semicolons ... :) Sasata (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • nothing about the Chemistry is mentioned in the lead
    • Done. I'm wondering whether the lead could do with expansion generally- thoughts? J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe it could use another sentence to further describe what the fruit body looks like macroscopically. I think the article is now well on the way to FAC and ready for more eyes. It certainly meets all the GA criteria, so I will promote it now. Hope you're successful in procuring a picture! Sasata (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks very much for the review. I got replies from both Cui and Dai, offering me pictures, but, as of yet, neither have been willing to release them under free licenses, sadly. I'll give it a few more days, poke around the article a little more, then nominate at FAC unless something occurs to me. Thanks again! J Milburn (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phellinus_ellipsoideus/GA1&oldid=1141714819"