Talk:Panellus stipticus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 09:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thoroughy reading it and forgot the time. It's 3:12 AM... zzzz.-- Rcej (Robert) - talk 09:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Very nice article :-) For now, in mating studies; define homokaryotic and Oceanian (so I know it's not a continent from "1984", heh). Also, a question: when you reference a large paragraph only once at the end of the very last sentence, I'm seeing that citation usually does cover everything. Is that sort of your intent in those instances? I don't want to overlook nor overstate and underef'd paragraph unintentionally.-- Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I have better linked and tweaked the mating studies section. Yes, if there's only a single citation at the end of a paragraph, then I've just paraphrased one source. Like the section on fruit body development, that 1919 paper was the only source I found that discussed that aspect of the mushroom (and quite in-depth too), so that's all I can cite there. Sasata (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Next; maybe oddly nitpicky, but I'm curious about File:PanellusStipticusAug12 2009.jpg. The article caption 'bioluminescence demonstrated' kind of made me stop and notice something I had not before: the green glow looks like it may be being enhanced by, at least in this image, an external UV light source (what they used to call a 'black light'). See the faint flourescent shine on the log? I'm wondering if that particular glow is from a black light shining on the exterior of the specimen combined with the bioluminosity. Also, the author's caption uses 'displayed' as opposed to 'demonstrated'. The language difference is just semantic I'm sure; but maybe the author could verify what's literally being seen.-- Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point. I suspect there's some kind of enhancement like you suggest. Thinking about it some more, it's more likely that the camera was set up on a tripod and a long exposure was taken (a typical technique for these kind of images). The greenish glow on the logs could then be explained by fungal mycelia on the surface (and we know the mycelia glows as well). Either way, it would be good to know for sure. I've left a note with the image creator and will update the caption whenever (s)he gets back to me. Sasata (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Turns out it was a long exposure (517 seconds) that did the trick. I've altered the figure captions in that section. Sasata (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well... looks like another wrap. I can't find anything here to toy with now!-- Rcej (Robert) - talk 08:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing again. I have ordered a culture slant of this species, and if everything goes to plan, will have photo of glowing mycelium to put in the article before it goes to FAC. Sasata (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

The article Panellus stipticus passes this review, and has been upgraded to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: Pass