Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tricholoma pardinum/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 GrahamColm 11:39, 18 February 2012 [1].

Tricholoma pardinum[edit]

Tricholoma pardinum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) & Sasata (talk · contribs) 11:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was another funny poisonous mushroom which fascinated me as a kid, and its drawings always looked sinister to me. Anyway, I buffed this to a point and then felt stuck for a long time, but finally called in Sasata, as alot of the information (particularly taxonomic history) was really fiddly and took some time, discussion and maybe even a little lateral thinking to get (hopefully) right. Two of us are here to address concerns super-quick, and hopefully it is a good read (and has about every damn thing written on the fungus in it :)) Have at it. (NB: 'tis verily a wikicup nomination, or is it a double nomination, or nomination/2....?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 2: are you sure about that location? I thought Göttingen was in Germany?
  • Foreign-language sources should be identified as such
  • FN 27: why the doubled publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed these; thanks Nikkimaria. Sasata (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, conditional on a few quibbles (and resolution of Nikkmaria's concerns above):

  • Ref 17 is a dead link.
  • In Description, is there a reason for some of the ranges using en dashes and some using the word "to"?
  • The reason is different styles of two contributing authors, and insufficient proofreading :) Changed to dashes. Sasata (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distribution: Can we introduce a bit of variety so most sentences don't begin with "It"? Subjective matter, really, but we need all the excitement we can get.
  • "A historical record from Estonia has been discarded." Why?
  • Added "... because no herbarium specimens could be found." Sasata (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eating it results in highly unpleasant gastrointestinal symptoms of nausea, dizziness, vomiting and diarrhea, which may have a fetid odour." I'm sure I'll be sorry for asking, but what has a fetid odour? The diarrhea? When does diarrhea not have a fetid odour? --Laser brain (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I think we can imagine what diarrhea smells like without the descriptor. Sasata (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All images verified as being properly sourced an either public domain or freely licensed. --Laser brain (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review Andy! Sasata (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-check:

  • Several of the sources are foreign-language, and I cannot verify them.
  • Ref 20(a): Article text is covered in work cited, and is appropriately paraphrased.
  • Ref 27: Article text is covered in work cited, and is appropriately paraphrased.
  • Ref 39: Too close for comfort.
    • Article text: "as far south as Santa Cruz County and Sierra Nevada in central California"
    • Source text: "as far south as Santa Cruz County and in the Sierra Nevada" --Laser brain (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Damn these ones can be tricky, with only a limited number of ways of imparting the information - have tweaked thusly Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I debated even mentioning it. Thanks for the tweak, though. --Laser brain (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Casliber could provide me with the text that is being cited to in the two French sources (FN 7 and 34), I'd be able to verify them as I speak French. Auree ★ 23:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's not much to verify with reference 7, but the text to ref 34 is on the talk page, and you're welcome to verify the accuracy of the Google translation :) Sasata (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source: [T. argyraceum] se caractérise principalement par la teinte jaune vif qui apparaît, avec l'âge, d'abord sur les lamelles, puis sur les autres points du corps fructifère où commence la corruption. Ces deux espèces se trouvant communément en plaine, sous feuillus et Conifères, tandis que le tricholome tigré est essentiellement montagnard.
  • My translation: [T. argyraceum] is primarily characterised by a bright shade of yellow that, with age, first appears on the gills, and later on others parts of the fruitbody where rotting/decay has commenced. These two species are commonly found in plains underneath broad-leaved trees and conifers, whereas the tiger tricholoma essentially grows in highlands.
  • Article: [...] its gills and bruised parts turn yellow with age. Both of these species are found more in lowlands in Europe, whereas T. pardinum is more common in montane areas." Auree ★ 12:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems all right to me, though the second sentence may be a little closely translated. I'll do the rest later. Auree ★ 12:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source: De plus, le Tricholoma orirubens se distingue du Tricholoma tigrinum par les plus faibles dimensions* du chapeau [...] la chair assez cassante ...
  • My translation: Furthermore, the Tricholoma orirubens is distinguished from the Tricholoma tigrinum by the smaller size* of its cap [...] the rather brittle flesh ... *"faibles dimensions" is slightly ambiguous; in this context, I take it to mean "smaller size", though it could also (less likely) refer to the meagreness/brittleness of the cap's structure.
  • Article: T. orirubens has [...] brittle flesh, and is generally smaller.
  • Clear from close paraphrasing, although I just noticed: the source seems to compare two different species (and not T. pardinum)? Auree ★ 18:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tricholoma tigrinum is a misapplied name (explained in the article) and is equivalent to our title subject here. Sasata (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source: crampes dans les mollets [found in list of symptoms]
  • Translation: cramps in the calves
  • Article: Cramping may occur in the calves.
  • Thanks for checking this source and the translation, Auree. I've distanced the text even further from the translation with this edit. Sasata (talk) 06:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but one highly significant further comment Comments from Jim just a few niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • authored the species — I don't like author as a verb, but if it's used as such, it should refer to a publication. Do you mean "described"?
duly deauthorised Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • authored a mushroom — write a mushroom... I think not, "described" again
ditto Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • fungus be authored as Tricholoma pardinum — "named"?
ditto Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • mycologist — overworked imho. I'd assume that someone writing about obscure mushrooms is a mycologist unless told otherwise
  • 2.5–4, 1.5–2, 2.5–4 — inconsistent number of sig figs, also inconsistent usage within article (8.0–9.6). Should be 4.0 etc
  • Hi Jim, thanks for the comments. Unfortunately, I just can't add sig figs, I have to give as many (or fewer) as reported by the source. I checked the sources I have available (Cas will have to check one I don't have) and added sig figs to a few (as warranted in the source), but in the "Similar species" section, the inconsistent sig fig values can't be helped. Sasata (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is just plain wrong, wrong, wrong. If you are saying you can't change what appears in the source, that means that you are assuming that the authors measured to 0.1 μm, except where they thought it looked like a whole number in which case they measured only to the nearest μm. I not sure it's even possible to do that without measuring to the nearest 0.1 first, then discarding that figure. The inconsistent figures are clearly due to sloppy writing/subediting. If you saw The sproe print is white in the source, would you reproduce as is, or correct an obvious typo? Even I'm not pedantic enough to withhold support on the basis of nonsensical data, but it's not OR to correct an obvious typo or formatting error Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the spore data was presented sloppily in this source (it's from a field guide, not a journal article, so they're writing for a general audience), but I'd have to make assumptions about the unseen original data and how it was rounded (or if it was at all) in order for this to be an "obvious" error, so I'd prefer not to make that decision and just report the data as is. Editorial wimpiness, I guess :) Sasata (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source has (in essence) whole and half micrometres, so it sorta doesn't gel with sigfigs very easily. Given they are .5's I am loth to round up....Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to seem to obsessive, but your usage is inconsistent in 5–6 by 3.5–4.0 μm. Why 4.0, but 5, 6? Also, if the source really is only measuring to half a μm, then giving a figure that implies tenths of a micron is misleading. 3½-4 would be appropriate. Now, where's my paperclip collection? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing a sig fig is ok, so I've done so to this particular measurement. Sasata (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I confess I do like using the '½' notation....and agree it is a good way of highlighting the original text's measuing, but wonder whether it'd look odd in a paragraph where other amounts are decimal. Also, I made the assumption the source was only measuring down to half-microns from the measurements themselves on the source page, so would folks seeing a bunch of .5 microns reading this assume the same? (i.e. is '½' necessary to denote this? - pondering what to do here...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mind using fractional numbers in general, but it would look inconsistent here where other measurements are in decimals. Looking at the big picture, I don't think much fuss is necessary about this: we give microscopic measurements so that the article meets the comprehensiveness requirement, but the average reader will likely gloss over this information. Others with a microscope will probably not care greatly about the sig figs given in these measurements (although we should do our best to present this information consistently as much as we are able). The few hard-core amateurs or mycologists who desire more precision will consult the scientific literature for these values. Sasata (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on criteria 1 and 2. Wow, I'm quite impressed with the quality of presentation here: The article is well structured, tightly written, comprehensive and has an overall clean look to it. I read through and found most of my concerns to be so minor that I took the liberty of making the changes myself (serial comma consistency, some redundancy removal, etc). Changes can be viewed here, please check if I haven't altered any meaning. In any case, good work! Auree ★ 00:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, am glad it reads well as I did feel mentally blocked by it for a couple of years...changes are ok. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Went through the article and didn't find anything worth complaining about. Another nice mushroom article. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:24, 10 February 2012 (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/Tricholoma_pardinum/archive1&oldid=1136457777"