Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mycena aurantiomarginata/archive1

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 Ian Rose 23:41, 27 January 2013 [1].

---

Mycena aurantiomarginata

Mycena aurantiomarginata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Mycena aurantiomarginata/archive1

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Mycena aurantiomarginata is a widely distributed fungal inhabitant of forest floors. Although relatively short, I think the article is comprehensive, and, after several bouts of copyediting, within reach of the prose standard of FAC. Would appreciate any assistance in further refining the article. Sasata (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Prose is excellent. A few niggles on ref spotchecks.

References

• Why is it that one of the sources that uses a page number (Smith) is listed under Cited text, but refs 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 27, 29, and 30 aren't listed separately?
• All the cite journal references have a different page number format from the rest of the citations. I realize that's the fault of the templates, but they should probably all be the same (this can just be fixed by implementing the above suggestion).
• Is there a reason none of the publishers or presses are linked? This probably isn't required, but it would certainly be helpful for readers.

ceranthor 21:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you for your support. The Smith book is the only source with a wide page range and multiple citations to different pages and so is best broken up into individual page cites to help with verification. Furthermore, this source is available online, so I can link each one of these pages individually. Journal articles with relatively short page ranges don't need to have individual pages cited. Journals and books have slightly different formatting (imposed by the templates, as you say), but they are different types of sources, so I think this is ok. As a personal preference, I generally don't link journals, publishers, publisher locations, or presses in the sources, thinking there's enough blue links in there already (having more bluelinks "makes it difficult for the reader to identify and follow links that are likely to be of value" like doi/jstor/pubmed identifiers, or direct links to article online. Sasata (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that seems fine to me. ceranthor 18:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support and comments from Jim I've actually been to the summit of Cerro de la Muerte, would have looked if I'd known. Just a couple of minor quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• lookalike and The pigment is likely responsible look informal to a Brit of a certain age, please assure me that they are standard Canadian

• I replaced "lookalike" with "similar", and removed "likely" (see below). Sasata (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Tetrapolar — I don't know what this means in this context

• I added an explanatory sentence with a number of links that I hope will suffice for this article ... sex in fungi is complicated! Sasata (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• The pigment is likely responsible for its color... The chemical is only present in the fruit bodies, and not in the colorless mycelia — Is there any doubt that it's the cause of the colour?

• After rereading the paper to make sure, no, there is no doubt. Thanks for your comments and support. Sasata (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support and comment from Dana. Just one little nitpick:

• Lead, "in North Africa, and Central America, and Japan." Do we need the first "and"?

• Otherwise, everything looks good. References look good, and I don't see any glaring issues with images, although I'm not an expert there. Dana boomer (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Dana; I removed the extraneous "and". Sasata (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Image check - all OK (Mushroom Observer, PD-chem ineligible formula). Sources and authors provided. One minimal nitpick:

• File:Mycena_leaiana_58075.jpg could use a proper MushroomObserver template (info, not relevant for FA). GermanJoe (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for checking; I added a MO template to that image. Sasata (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support, well-written, informative, and accessible to non-experts. The sourcing and comprehensiveness look good, as compared to other featured articles of the same genre. --Laser brain (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Query -- from the lead: antibiotic activity that may function in nature to prevent certain bacteria from growing on the mushroom. As a layman I have to ask whether "in nature" really adds anything. Where else would it function? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Another good example of why I appreciate the extra eyes from FAC ... I've removed the unnecessary phrase. Sasata (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.