User talk:Sasata/Archive 19

Metalloid FA

Hello Sasata. I intend to nominate Metalloid for FA. In this regard User:Nergaal suggested getting somebody outside of WP:ELEM (of which both of us are a member of) to copyedit it first. I don't know if this required since the article has been vetted many times in the course of passing through each of the classes from C (where I started on it) to B, B+ and GA, and thence to A, where it is now. Would you be able to take a quick look at the article to see if you reckon it would require copyediting before I nominate it? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 09:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think it will need some extensive copyediting. From a quick glance I see several problems:

• overlinking (you should install Ucucha's duplicate link script to deal with this quickly and efficiently)
• overcitation (many statements have four or five citations? Why? Why not a single citation to a reliable secondary source, like a textbook?)
• uninformative image captions
• many bulleted lists (will not go over well at FAC)
• reference formatting needs to be picked over (some hyphen->endash issues; punctuation errors; sources duplicated; etc.)
• that's a massive source list. Couldn't some of those older textbooks from the 1950s and 60s be replaced with (fewer) citations from more recent texts? Sasata (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Sasata. That's very good feedback from a fresh pair of eyes. I've started working on the bulleted lists. Will be back when I've acted on all your points. Sandbh (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Sasata. I believe I've addressed all the problems you listed, and made some other refinements along the way.

• Re overlinking, thank you for pointing me to Ucucha's script which was impessively quick and efficient.
• Re overcitations, twenty per cent of citations are double citations; and around six per cent are triple or more citations a rate which I don't think is an issue. Reasons for multiple citations are one or more of: there is some controversy; the references are somewhat obscure; the citations are backing up several points in the one sentence or paragraph and don't lend themselves to being distributed throughout the sentence or paragraph; to substantiate multiple (unusual) examples. I have however collapsed, where practical, all instances of four or more citations occurring together, into one citation with multiple references.
• Uninformative captions have been expanded.
• Most of the bulleted lists have been turned into a prose. The few remaining are best left as such, in my view.
• Reference formatting has been checked and corrected.
• I used as many references as I thought would be needed to do a fair job of (a) summarizing and substantiating the subject matter, which is quite fuzzy---much more so than is usual for a chemistry topic; and (b) resolving the continual slow edit war the article used to be subject to. Yes, there are a fair number of older references. This is a reflection of: the long history of the use and development of the concept of a semimetal/metalloid, dating from, in particular, the 19th century onwards; the comparative explosion of references to metalloids in the 1950s and 60s as a result of a general consensus being reached as to the application of the term metalloid to intermediate or borderline elements, around this time; and a general decline in descriptive chemistry writing from the 1970s onwards (although there has been a recent mini-renaissance).

Could you please take another quick look before I (hopefully) nominate the article for FA. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks better! Here's a few more things that you could get out of the way before FAC. Sasata (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• all end of paragraph sentences should have citations
• try to minimize (or eliminate) the number of one- or two-sentence paragraphs
• "However" is one of the most overused words, especially in scientific writing. I think this article could use a pruning (do the same for "also")
• should do a sweep for consistent British or American English usage (e.g., I see both "color" and "colour", "characterised" and "delocalized", etc.)
• format the ISBN's so they are consistently hyphenated (or unhyphenated)
• make sure all of the page ranges use endashes, not hyphens (see "283‒303"; "1032-1233"; "2661‒67" and others; note that the partial page range format of the last is not the same as the full page range of most of the others)
• make sure all bibliographic info is included (e.g., "Rayner-Canham G 2011" and "Poojary DM, Borade RB & Clearfield A 1993" are missing the issue #'s; there are several more like this – just click the linked doi's)

Excellent feedback thank you. I thought I had all the page range separators as figure dashes but maybe in all of the organising, sorting and swapping of the reference list between different applications a few hyphens have slipped back in. Your observations about however and also are gold. I especially liked your observations about dashes in ISBNs. Some publishers include them some don't. Will remove them. Back later after I've addressed all of this. Sandbh (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sasata: have gotten all the above out the way:

• But for a few end of paragraph sentences all such have citations
• One- or two-sentence paragraphs are minimal
• Pruned however's by 20% and also's by 30%
• Australian English used throughout
• ISBNs all unhyphenated
• All page spans now use en dashes, and minimum number of figures
• Missing biblio info added
• Also bundled remaining double and triple citations.

Hope it might be good to go now. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's in the range now. One last thing: there should be non-breaking spaces between all numbers and abbreviated units. Good luck with the FAC; there's a lot of FACs open right now (55 currently), and not enough reviewers. You might be able to generate some good will by reviewing some other candidates. I'll try to visit, but I have a lot on my plate. Sasata (talk) 22:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Beaut, ta. I intend to review 2 FACs before posting mine. Sandbh (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Number_of_pages_in_journal_article_before_considering_noting_specific_pages

Actually that got me thinking on whether we should do it for all journal articles, though might be a bit silly in 3-page articles to highlight one page...or then again maybe not. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are some who already think this is the way to go, and if so, then sfn citations might become de rigueur. But I've seen a lot of push against this; I guess people don't want to give up their favorite style. Personally, I think it's unnecessary for articles of less than 10–15 pages or so (I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, though), but then where does one draw the line? Will be interesting to see what discussion comes of this. Looking forward to the day in the distant future when Wikipedia software automatically displays the style in the format/skin one has specified in their preferences... Sasata (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Salamander

I was pleased to see you had joined the WikiCup again! Would you be interested in working on the article Salamander later in the competition, when points are more important, with a view to FAC? You said you were interested in these amphibians and the neoteny/larval development issues are quite complex. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like a fine idea! The advance notice will give me plenty of time to raid the library and do some reading. I'll be in touch later on the talk page once I've given more thought to what needs to be done. Sasata (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your contributions to bring Magnus Carlsen up to Good Article status. Thanks, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

... and thanks to you for a helpful review! Sasata (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Just finished reading that article, thanks for your great work there :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Good (if unexpected) result today; looking forward to the Anand-Carlsen world championship match! Sasata (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You are high on my rolodex..

ALT2 or ALT3? Thx! ;) Rcej (Robert) – talk 12:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Pygmy slow loris

Hi Sasata, just wondering if you or any of the others were planning on taking pygmy slow loris to GAN? I could help out some how if you need? Cheers, Jack (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jack, several of the citations need specific page numbers, and I just haven't been motivated enough with this topic to spend the time to track them down. Last I recall, it needed a line-by-line copyedit to smooth out the prose ... but I haven't looked at it for a while, so this would probably be easier for me to do now. Feel free to work on either of these things, it'd be good to finish off this topic – although it's gotten bigger recently with the new species; I've not been following the new developments and am not sure if the circumscription of the new species affects the contents of this article. Sasata (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

It looked like the new species only disrupted the Bornean slow loris. I'll have a look into page numbers and post the stuff I can't do on the WP:PRIM talk page. Cheers, Jack (talk) 09:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sasata: If you have digital copies of the sources you used, I could work on tracking down the page numbers. I would really like to get them added. Unfortunately, neither Ucucha nor I have access to those sources, so unless you can send them to me, you're the only one who can fix that. – Maky ^« talk » 14:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have digital copies. Many of those unavailable page numbers are from sources I used when I spent some time at the University of Alberta and Calgary libraries, and I haven't been back there since. The article is looking better, but I'd still give like to give it a copyedit and update it with some recent sources; will put it up for GAN after I finish that. Sasata (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... It's so frustrating that digital copies or previews aren't available. I should buy the Groves book for my personal lemur/primate library, but money is tight right now. I've emailed Nekaris to see if she can help with the Duckworth source and also posted a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. I'm trying to find a replacement for the Nadler et al. source and may try asking a librarian at Stanford to help me with it. – Maky ^« talk » 14:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

So there I was......

this morning decided to go for a drive and a bushwalk to get a better photo of a Persoonia linearis trunk among other things...and I recalled that we've had some heavy downpours over the summer...so made a detour to a local place near me where this mushroom crops up in summer after rain...and sure enough....anyway check my contribs on commons. I'd forgotten about writing this one...and it'd be good to get to GA/FA...I was concerned the taxonomy was a real schemozzle but reckon we can do it justice (I recalled looking at this a few years ago and rolling my eyes). Another joint shove to FA if you want - main reason I am thinking a collaborative effort is prudent as I reckon the taxonomy could get very involved and need a lot of ferreting of sources....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok I'm in! This will give me an excuse to buy some Australian field guides I've been thinking about. (p.s. It'd be good if we could swap out the lead pic to get rid of the black-socked feet :-) Sasata (talk) 14:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at the images on commons and feel free to mix and match etc. I just which I'd had a knife - I ended up chopping one in half rather messily with a key to get a cross sectional photo.. :P Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Libertia etymology

Hi. In this edit you sourced a statement about Ms Libert, where she was referred to as "Anne-Marie Libert". The French wikipedia, amongst other places, has her as fr:Marie-Anne Libert. So could you perhaps check your source again? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• I have rechecked the source, and confirmed that I have cited it correctly. Here are some other sources that this name order: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. On the other hand, the authoritative "AUTHORS OF FUNGAL NAMES" published by CABI uses "Marie-Anne". There's also this image, which argues in favor of the latter spelling. To summarize, the citation is correct, but I'm not sure what the actual spelling is without doing more research. Sasata (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that. The books advertised here support the MA spelling. The AM spelling seems to occur only in English-language sources except for the book by François Crépin which you cite above. Perhaps she used both orders. Other language wikipedias all support MA, and they're not all clones of each other. It's all very puzzling. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I've created a stub article, mainly just a translation of the French one. There's more could be added using the references given there. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
      • I've done a bit more to the article. Here is a map with a street in Malmedy named after her, as Marie-Anne. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Astraeus hygrometricus

Hi. here [7] you say that there is no published source for saying that rugra=Astraeus_hygrometricus. In the parts of jharkhand where this mushroom is found there is very little scope for research and even less scope of publishing. I am 30yrs old and have been seeing and eating this for years. This is the only reference you will find for the common name Rugra. Not because it does not exist but because no one has ever written about it.MKachhap (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC) mkachhap

(talk page stalker) I had already reverted the edits before I read this, but I will explain why. Wikipedia is based on what other people have already written. If there is no published source for the fact that rugra = Astraeus hygrometricus then we should not be the first place to publish it, since we have a policy of no original research. If you are absolutely certain that rugra are Astraeus hygrometricus then you need to get someone to publish this in a reliable source and then we can include it in the article. SmartSE (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

In addition to what Smartse wrote above, there's an additional complication: recent research has shown that what used to be known as A. hygrometricus in various parts of Asia are actually a complex of related species, including Astraeus odoratus, Astraeus asiaticus, Astraeus koreanus, and Astraeus thailandicus. It may be that the Indian "A. hygrometricus" is a distinct species too. Sasata (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Peer review of Lyme Disease article

Hi. I saw that your name was featured on the volunteers list for peer review. I was wondering if you could educate me on why the Lyme Disease article is B grade rather than GA grade. What needs to be done to the article for it to receive a higher grade? Thanks GT67 (talk) 20:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Lyme disease/archive2, FYI. Biosthmors (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

In order for it to become a "Good Article", it needs to be nominated at WP:GAN, and will have to meet the GA criteria. Additionally, since it is a medical topic, the sources will need to meet the reliable sources criteria for medical articles. I see the article is currently densely cited, but many of the sources are primary and would have to be removed or replaced with citations to review articles or textbooks before it would stand a chance at passing through GAN. Sasata (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article and providing feedback! I will look into this. GT67 (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Mycoflora Australis

Hi Sasata.

I'm an editor of the Spanish version of Wikipedia, and I'm improving the information about fungus species in Chile. For that porpuse I would find really helpful a copy of Singer's book, Mycoflora Australis. I'm aware that you area of interst is micology, so I think you may own a copy of the book. If that's the case, can you send me it? Thanks, --Andresisrael (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't own a copy of that book. Sasata (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Input from mycologists....

As well as getting a quick reply from Roy Watling, I alerted Rodham Tulloss to the unidentified amanita category - he said the photographs made his mouth water and he'd get back to looking at them later...Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Watling and Tulloss – big guns! Would be good to get some of those mystery Amanitas identified. Sasata (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Procellariiformes GA

I've managed to sort out sources for all the gaps, except for some of the fossil text which I've removed and replaced, so the article is ready for review. All the best - Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll be back soon (probably this evening). Sasata (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for EB comments; Sabine's Sunbird and I have replied to most of them, either directly or by finding other things in those general directions. Let me know if more are needed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Manta GA

Would you be able to take a look? Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe; I should get my other open GANS finished first. Will consider taking up the review if someone else hasn't by then. Sasata (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I'll also ask another user for now. LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Hartebeest

Hello! Unless you are too busy, could you please take a look at this article? I have put many efforts in it, and I mean to put it up for FAC. It is a GA and has recently received a copyedit. Still, I seek your opinion, as you have vitally helped me to make Giant eland a successful FAC. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 05:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll have a look over the weekend. Sasata (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Sainsf, I'd like to work on this some more; still needs more copyediting, and I'd like to do a lit search too. Hope you aren't in a rush! Sasata (talk)

Boletus badius

am expanding for DYK (you're welcome to join in - was 150 words beforehand so might need alot of input!). I recall the funny story about how Boletus badius Pers. is now a polypore...interesting case of conserving names...but don't recall where I read it... :P Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I just happened to have a draft I was working on, so I unceremoniously dumped it in ... it's still quite rough and needs more expansion and copyediting, but should get us past the DYK stage. Sasata (talk) 13:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Great! I ate dried Boletus badius once as it was available in a market in Sydney (imported) - it was quite different to porcini and mild. Anyway...Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

PS: I just realised it's so long ago since I started the article it's like almost starting it from scratch. Wanna shove it over the line at GA and possibly FA now? With two of us it should be straightforward. I was becoming more enthused as there are alot of nice photos on commons and although taxonomically it's a bit of a problem, it's a much more definable problem than Phlebopus marginatus....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the same myself about all of your points. I still have some more database checking to do for additional sources, and most of the summary sentences I've already added from various other papers could be expanded a bit to tell the story better (so there's definitely some room for growth before FAC), but it's already close to GA range. Should be able to give it a good push over the next few days. Sasata (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I've got the guidebooks out and ready next to the computer..I should be able to ferret out a couple of anecdotes...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a Boletus. It is more closely related to Xerocomellus. Obfuscateme (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Boletus badius

The DYK project (nominate) 08:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

EngVar

Hi Sasata, just to assure you, I had no prejudice for Amer Eng at Magnus article, the words I changed had higher counts w/ Amer spelling, so I assumed on that basis the article was intending Amer Eng but had some inconsistencies. (It did puzzle me later, considering where Magnus is from!) So I missed your 'modeled → modelled' change & edit sum, since (as u can see) I really didn't investigate. (I should have gone deeper, sorry.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I have no real preference either, but the article seemed to be mostly BE when I started working on it (and that made most sense anyway per MOS:ENGVAR). Cheers, Sasata (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Tylopilus felleus

And while I have the books all out, may as well 5x expand this one too....more challenging as bigger to start with (198 words) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'm down for that, I've got several good bolete sources. Sasata (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

How about an even more challenging triple hook:

DYK ... that the bacterium Paenibacillus tylopili is found in the mycorhizosphere of Tylopilus felleus?

Cool! See how we go....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Nominated now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Great! I think we need to review three articles for QPQ, but let me take care of that. Sasata (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that - my free time is incredibly patchy at present....which do you think is coming together easier...Boletus badius or Tylopilus felleus? I am also beginning to dump info in Boletus calopus and Boletus luridus as well, so might be nice to get them to GA too.....a production line :)Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think either are pretty close to being GAN-worthy; I'll do more more work on them tonight after the offspring get to bed (I have several sources to use for a "Research" section in T. fellus). I'm all for getting more fungi articles to GA, so will start adding info to the latter two as well. Sasata (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I have slung them both up for GAN as I think the content's just about all there. I juggled the material for Boletus badius and felt it looked much better. Anything else to do would be minor and I suspect they will be sitting there for a little while...and there's two of us watching them..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good; I'll probably continue working on them as we wait for a review ... Sasata (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I am sure there are plenty of little bits and pieces. I keep skimming them myself......Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

NB: I asked for help with translation of German - see here --> User_talk:Sgeureka#Help_with_german Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, should we change "which contains the antabuse-like compound coprine." to something like "which contains the antabuse-like compound coprine (or an unidentified compound with similar physiological effects)"? Sasata (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually - the parent topic is so specific that I think we can be a little more elaborative...which hopefully invites the readers to see the experimenting for themselves and make their own conclusions....hang on a sec. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok done - what do you think? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup, that reads better! Sasata (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Cerevisterol

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Spelling

Hi, and well done for expanding this article. Unfortunately you changed the spelling from British to American English in the process. Could you be careful not to do this? Thanks, --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Just wondering, you've never edited the article before, so what concern is it of yours? Sasata (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think following established guidelines like WP:ENGVAR should be everybody's concern, don't you? --MarchOrDie (talk) 15:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure. You wouldn't happen to be the editor formerly known as user:Br'er Rabbit, user:Jack Merridew, and various other names, would you? Sasata (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't. --MarchOrDie (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Lenzites warnieri

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Nominations Request For Comment

A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here. At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support. If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread. Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.

Request for Peer Review

Hi Sasata, I have recently written an article on Progeroid syndromes and would like to get it to a good article status. I have submitted it for peer review. If you can spare a moment, I would greatly appreciate your input in this. Thank you very much for your attention. Kinkreet^{~♥moshi moshi♥~} 03:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Carrot

We seem both to be working on the article Carrot so I will stop for the time being so that we don't have edict conflicts. I was mystified at first when I found some of the references were present on the edit side but were not displaying. Was that caused by your actions? Cwmhiraeth (talk)

I haven't noticed any display issues like that on my end. Sasata (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I found it a bit mystifying. Looking at the History, I see now that you added several references while I was co-incidentally looking for references for the same section. I could see them on the edit page but they were not there when I went back to my pre-your-edits version. Never mind! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would explain it, "ghost" sources arising from seemingly nowhere as a result of the Wiki software displayed (outdated) cached versions of the article! Sasata (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It had been my intention to work on Carrot to get it to GA standard but I don't want to tread on your toes. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I have pretty tough toes, so feel free to join in for an eventual co-nom, if you'd like (there's still a lot of room for expansion). I'll be shutting down for the evening soon. Sasata (talk) 06:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I originally thought I would accept your offer but have had further thoughts. You have been improving the referencing in a way unfamiliar to me and I'm sure I could adjust to that, but I think I would prefer to work on Onion instead, at my own pace and in my own way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I'm planning to work on garlic myself, and taking cabbage to FAC with Dana Boomer later this year ... it will be a good year for vegetables! Sasata (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello there, I noticed that you updated the rounded nutrition values at the top of the nutritionalvalue template in the carrot article. I came close to making those same changes myself. Being relatively new to making edits in Wiki, do you have any feedback on the changes I made prior to your edit? Chango369w (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Your changes were fine. They prompted me to look to the source and compare the values – to ensure you weren't a vandal :) – and I noticed some of the other figures were not quite what the source gave. All is good, carry on! Sasata (talk) 03:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• In my view, having nutritional values in the text that differ from those in the nutrition box make the article appear to lack credibility. Why not use the USDA figures in the first line of text and reference them to USDA while leaving the later parts of the paragraph as they are now? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• I might do that. Sasata (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Bio-barnstar for you!

		The Bio-star
		Awarded to Sasata for fine work on Mycorrhizosphere and fungal topics in general. Topical articles such as Mycorrhizosphere can be much more challenging to write than articles focused on a species, so they are particularly appreciated. Orlady (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, Orlady! I hope to work on some more general mycology topics this year. Sasata (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tylopilus felleus

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Paenibacillus tylopili

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Mycorrhizosphere

The DYK project (nominate) 08:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

GA review

I'm going to nominate the koala article for GA. Would you be able to review it and prepare it for FAC? LittleJerry (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, that'd be good bonus points for the WikiCup. I'd prefer expanding after a literature review, copyediting, and co-nomming at FAC. Does this sound like something you'd be agreeable with? Sasata (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Come again? You mean you would like to expand and co-nomiante it? I already got some people to copyedit it. LittleJerry (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. As it stands, it doesn't look like criteria 1b and c are met yet (I could help with that), and while extra eyes from the GoCE are helpful, history has shown that they aren't always able to bring the prose and MoS compliance up to the standards required for FA (I could help with that too). Sasata (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay then. LittleJerry (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll start working on it tonight. Will start expanding after I go to the library this weekend to pick up some books. Sasata (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Vegetables and their pathogens

I had plans to do three things today:

• 1. Finish and move Stromatinia cepivora from my userspace. This I have done.
• 2. Ask you to have a look at it as it is a fungal pathogen and more in your area of expertise. This I am doing now.
• 3. Write a description section for Parsnip, an article I started working on yesterday. This I find you have already done, though your description bears little resemblance to what mine would have looked like (see Onion). I'm pleased you are working on the Taxonomy section however. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sure, I'll have a look at the fungal pathogen this weekend. I still have a lot of work to do on the parsnip article, so the description section be will expanded and will probably bear little resemblance to what it does now. Sasata (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Scutigeral

Hi, here it is! http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Scutigeral.png

May I know which article you are using it in? Haha :P -- YOSF0113 (talk - contributions) 13:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again YOSF0113, you're my go-to guy for structures. The article looks better already! Sasata (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Haha you're welcome! Looking forward to more :) -- YOSF0113 (talk - contributions) 14:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Ramaria botrytis

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Ramaria botrytis. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tricholoma ustale

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ustalic acid

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

what?

What seems to be your problem here? Can you at least give an explanation for such edits? It is undoubtedly the right species.--Natr (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't even see you add an interwiki link (thought they were handled on Wikidata now?). When I hovered over the diff, I just saw that the external links section had been moved (incorrectly) before the references. In the future, you should add an edit summary to explain your edits. Sasata (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I have added the català article to the Wikidata entry, so that should be all set. Chris857 (talk) 03:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit sorry now for the pretty pissed reaction last night. It's just annoying to get the impression that I have to guard my edits and I can't fix something and forget it.

I don't use Wikidata yet because it doesn't work for me. It seems to need Javacript to come to life and let you do anything.

I thought I was improving things by not hiding the weblinks behind the forest of the references, which aren't used as intensively.

I tend to think I don'T have to bother writing an edit summary for small things or self-explanatory stuff, but I would have expected one for a revert.--Natr (talk) 12:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Tricholoma--your bot worked faster than I could

Hi! I set up the category for Tricholoma, and started moving a few articles from the family into that category, beginning with the As. Then I went and did something else for a bit.
When I came back to do a few more, I found you had set some sort of bot (about which I know nothing) to move them, beginning with the Vs (the last letter among the group). All well and good, except that I'd been moving them in such a way as to appear on the page under an alphabet for the species names. The bot was moving them all to the letter T.
I tried to get a few more in, but the bot did several for every one I did. Oh, well. I'll go back and try to edit things so that they all appear one way or all the other. Uporządnicki (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• No bot here, just multi-tabs. Sasata (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• ... and done, thanks for the help. Sasata (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow! I came back to work at it some more, and watched it sorting itself. Uporządnicki (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Volvopluteus

Hi, thanks for all the edits on the Volvopluteus page!. I will create separate pages for the four species in the following weeks. cheers, Alfredo Justo (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeast

I'm putting the Yeast article through a Good Article Reassessment. I've left some comments on the review page: Talk:Yeast/GA2, and the review is on hold for an initial seven days. AS you are one of the main contributors to the article, I thought you might be interested. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Another cladogram

Hello again. Would you be able to create another cladogram this time for manta ray? You can find the tree here. You can just do the Myliobatiod lineage if the whole stingray lineage is too much. Thank you! LittleJerry (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that tonight. Sasata (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Remember, the article it comes from is already cited. LittleJerry (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think a cladogram of the Myliobatiformes might be preferred. LittleJerry (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Here it is:

Hexatrygon Plesiobatis Urobatis Pteroplatytrygon Potamotrygon Elipesurus Dasyatis Gymnura Aetoplatea Myliobatis Aetobatus Aetomylaeus Rhinoptera Mobula Manta

Phylogeny of the stingrays (Myliobatiformes)

I didn't see a convenient place to insert it, so I'll let you figure that out. Let me know if you want the branches annotated (e.g., including "B", "L", "+E", etc., to indicate the prey type. Sasata (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank again! LittleJerry (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Long-tailed Ground Roller FAC

Hello. I’d like to thank you for reviewing the Long-tailed Ground Roller’s FAC nearly a year ago, and apologize for having to step away from Wikipedia prior to the FAC’s completion to deal with my studies. I've gone through all of the old commentary and believe that I have resolved it. I’m confident I have the time to finish the FAC, and I have re-nominated the article here. I would greatly appreciate it if you could give the article another look. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

How dare you neglect your Wikipedia duties in favour of "real life"! Seriously, sure, I'll come back in the next few days to revisit. Sasata (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Sclerodermatineae

Casliber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Albatrellus subrubescens

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Albatrellus subrubescens. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Clavulina--Cantharellaceae?

I see that you recently moved the category pages for the genera Cantharellus and Clavulina both to parent category Cantharellaceae. Are you sure you meant to do that?
I'm hardly a fungus expert; just someone with a general interest in (among other things) science, who has undertaken to organize Wikipedia categories to do with (among other things) taxonomy. And I work based on what I find right here in Wikipedia.
But what I see is, while the genus Cantharellus is indeed in family Cantharellaceae, the genus Clavulina is in family Clavulinaceae.
Some parts of Wikipedia have both families Cantharellaceae and Clavulinaceae in the order Cantharelles, and I wondered if that might be a better parent category. But then I found that other parts put the Clavulinaceae in the order Gomphales.
By the way, I have not just now looked at individual articles for Clavulina species to see if any of them place that genus in Cantharellaceae. Uporządnicki (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed my error – thanks. I fixed those pages that had the Clavulinaceae genera in the Gomphales; the Gomphales has been reorganized recently due to molecular phylogenetic studies and these pages had not yet been updated. Most of the Clavulina pages have been created recently and so have the correct classification; I corrected one that still had the outdated taxonomy. Sasata (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Fluorine

Does it seem interesting?

I would love you to check out fluorine. I have plans to FA it this summer, but I need help with prose, maybe grammar, also fresh eyes would be really appreciated. Do you think you could help?

Note we're not in a hurry.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting – most definitely. Needs a copyedit – yes. I'll try to help in bits and pieces (I like the "no rush" timeframe!) Sasata (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Mythicomyces

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Peer req: Sex + Water Pollution

Howdy! Found you listed as a potential volunteer for science / biology related topics - If you have a moment, I'd like to get some more eyes looking at the peer review of Sex effects of water pollution, it appears to be a bit quackery/bias-heavy, but I don't know if it qualifies for deletion outright because of that... Cheers, —Hobart (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Phallus indusiatus

This is a note to let the main editors of Phallus indusiatus know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on May 10, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or one of his delegates (Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs)), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 10, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Phallus indusiatus, commonly called the bamboo fungus, bamboo pith, long net stinkhorn, crinoline stinkhorn or veiled lady, is a fungus in the family Phallaceae, or stinkhorns. It has a cosmopolitan distribution in tropical areas, and is found in southern Asia, Africa, the Americas, and Australia, where it grows in woodlands and gardens in rich soil and well-rotted woody material. The fruit body of the fungus is characterised by a conical to bell-shaped cap on a stalk and a delicate lacy "skirt", or indusium, that hangs from beneath the cap and reaches nearly to the ground. It was first described scientifically in 1798 by French botanist Étienne Pierre Ventenat. Mature fruit bodies are up to 25 cm (9.8 in) tall with a conical to bell-shaped cap that is 1.5–4 cm (0.6–1.6 in) wide. The edible mushroom mushroom, grown commercially and commonly sold in Asian markets, is rich in protein, carbohydrates, and dietary fiber. It also contains various bioactive compounds, and has antioxidant and antimicrobial properties. Phallus indusiatus has a recorded history of use in Chinese medicine extending back to the 7th century AD, and features in Nigerian folklore. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Eriophorum angustifolium

Hi Sasata,

I have been doing a little work on Eriophorum angustifolium, which you reviewed at GAN. It seemed a shame for it to fail when it was so close. I think I have addressed just about all the outstanding issues from the last review, and I was wondering if you would consider re-opening your review. (I suspect that I will have to re-list it at GAN, and that – formally at least – it will have to be treated as a new review.) --Stemonitis (talk) 10:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stemonitis, I noticed your helpful changes to the article. I usually don't review an article a second time, as I think it benefits the article more to have a fresh set of eyes looking at it. I don't imagine you'd be waiting that long in the Natural Sciences section of GAN; the only articles that seem to linger there are those that are woefully underprepared, which is clearly not the case here. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll give it a careful read through, and then head off to GAN. Thanks for your comments in the previous review; I'm sure they'll stand the article in good stead for the next round. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Chalciporus piperatus

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Durianella

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation for taking a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research

Hi Sasata, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Fungi talk page that you are an active member of the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

DYKs...

expanding Austropaxillus was easy...but damn Tapinella atrotomentosa is heavy going!!!! 13:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'll work on them today. I think we should buff them all to GA, including Chalciporus piperatus, Durianella, and maybe a few others too... (p.s. you'll find more stuff if you search under the old name Paxillus atrotomentosus) Sasata (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• If you hold off on submitting a DYK for T. atrotomentosa, I may be able to swing a multi-hook pertaining to fungi with wound-activated defence mechanisms. There's still quite a bit to add for this mushroom (mostly on chemistry), but I'll need a bit of time to digest the literature. I'll expand the description later from Arora 1986. Will work on Austropaxillus later tonight. Sasata (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree on buffing them all to GA - happy to hold off nominating, sounds like a good plan. Once the dust has settled there is another challenge...Boletus luridiformis is 397 words...reckon it can be buffed to 2000 in five days? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on a quick database search (combining both B. luridiformis & B. erythropus), I think it would be possible (but challenging, yes) ... but let's wait maybe until the weekend before starting (I also have to finish work on the koala article soon for its FAC push...). Sasata (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, no hurry. Wait till the wiki-dust has settled on a few other tasks and then an "ambush" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, the triple-hook DYK has been submitted. If we hurry, we can probably boost Austropaxillus infundibuliformis over 1500 chars and make that hook a double. Sasata (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

A. infundibuliformis now included. I'll still work on expanding all of these submissions until the MP appearance to try for the size bonus. Sasata (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm ... now I'm thinking Serpula would be as easy target to get to 1500 char as well ... we'll see how the free time plays out today ... Sasata (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I have expanded that article - but am having trouble linknig it to the hook - I just need a source saying it is the "dry rot" genus....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I have something I can use for that. I'll add it tonight, then update the DYK nom. Sasata (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Why would you use "dry rot?" It is a brown rot species, and in the Agaricomycotina the rot types discussed most are brown rot vs. white rot and the genetic and evolutionary histories associatd with both pathways. M.E.Nuhn (talk) 18:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

We did end up using brown rot. The initial idea was to use "dry rot" to emphasize the perhaps unexpected close relationship between a genus of mycorrhizal mushroom-forming fungi and crust-like fungi that destroy structural timber (in theory, DYK hooks have to be interesting to the average reader), but then we realized that dry rot really only applies to Serpula lacrymans, so it didn't fit the three-article hook originally proposed. Sasata (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Plasmodiophora bicaudata

There is a discussion on the talk page of Plasmodiophora bicaudata about its taxonomy. It is closely related to Plasmodiophora brassicae, the causative agent for clubroot in brassicas. Wikipedia classifies them under Rhizaria but some other authorities do not. Your expert opinion on how to proceed would be welcome. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I have no expertise on these organisms (or this Kingdom), so will not be of much help. However, I did find this:

• Neuhauser S, Bulman S, Kirchmair M. (2010). "Plasmodiophorids: The Challenge to Understand Soil-Borne, Obligate Biotrophs with a Multiphasic Life Cycle". In Gherbawy Y, Voigt K. (ed.). Molecular Identification of Fungi. Spinger-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-642-05041-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

"Plasmodiophorids are an enigmatic group of obligate biotrophic pathogens of higher plants. Together with their sister group phagomyxids, which infect stramenopiles, they form the monophyletic eukaryote clade phytomyxids. They have long been treated as a basal group of fungi, but recent molecular phylogenies point to a close affiliation with the protozoan phylum Cercozoa." and "The phytomyxids (plasmodiophorids and phagomyxids) comprise a monophyletic group of eukaryotes which were originally considered as protists, later as fungi, and are now considered as members of the protist supergroup Rhizaria ..."

This seems to agree with the classification that is currently in the article. There's a lot more information in this book chapter about the classification of Plasmodiophorids (not specifically this species though), so let me know if you'd like me to email this to you. Sasata (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I am happy to leave the article as it is without further investigating what seems to me a bit of a minefield, but I might copy what you have written above on the article's talk page. I only wrote this article about the pathogen because it causes wasting disease in an eelgrass for which I was writing an article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Tapinella atrotomentosa

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Lactarius porninsis

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Lactarius fuliginosus

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Fomitiporia ellipsoidea on the main page

Hi Sasata, I hope your trip went well. I've got Fomitiporia ellipsoidea appearing on the main page in a few days, and I've done what I can to update the article with recent research. Anyway, it seems an alternative binomial has been recently proposed, but that it hasn't been taken up yet. I don't really want to jump the gun, but, at the same time, I'd hate for the article to be out of date on its MP appearance. Would you mind taking a look at the changes I've made and see what you think? Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look before it hits the MP. I suspect the name just hasn't been updated because the publication is so recent and the authors haven't gotten around to entering the new data yet. If you want, you could actually update the MycoBank & IF record yourself; once it's reviewed by the curators and goes live you can then rename/update the article; I'm not sure if this could all happen within the space of a few days, but you never know ... (actually, I see the MP appearance is scheduled for the 12th, so I would think that'd be enough time for all this to happen if you want it to be). Sasata (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Buchwaldoboletus lignicola

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK review

Thanks for your review of Template:Did you know nominations/Koehler Depressing Carriage - I've sorted out the citation issue that you mentioned. Prioryman (talk) 07:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Austropaxillus

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Austropaxillus infundibuliformis

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Serpula (fungus)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)