Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca/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 via FACBot (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2015 [1].

Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca[edit]

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, now orange is the new black and Sasata and I have been buffing the false chanterelle. I feel it's come together well and within striking distance of FA status if not over the FA line. Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... just adding that this article is nearly a decade old, haven grown from this stub started on 10 November 2006! Sasata (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Coloured_Figures_of_English_Fungi_or_Mushrooms_-_t._413.jpg needs a US PD tag, and should include original rather than upload date. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sasata (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: the writing seems excellent, and the article appears to be in good form. I gave it a read through but could find no issues. The images are sufficient and well suited to the task. The references look to be properly formatted. From my perspective, the article satisfies the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review. All sources seem to be of proper quality and properly formatted, with the following exceptions:

Ref 9 (Holden): why is "Names" capped? Ref 35 and 36 do not have a "UK" after London, all other instances in footnotes do. Ref 36 (Desjardin): which Portland?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

locations tweaked. Names lowercased. "oregon" added. thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from delldot ∇.

Support. This article is great, I can't see any problems with the content, just a few very minor copy editing thoughts:

to my American ears not particularly worthwhile eating would sound better as not particularly worthwhile to eat

hmmm, former sounds more natural to me, but will defer to @Sasata: if i am outvoted :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both sound ok to my Canadian ears. Sasata (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The little para beginning The specific epithet is the Latin word aurantiacus seems kind of weird stuck in the middle of the taxonomy section since it is introductory, might it work at the beginning? Maybe you could rearrange the current first two sentences a bit so it goes, ...commonly known as the false chanterelle. Austrian naturalist Franz Xaver von Wulfen described it as Agaricus aurantiacus in 1781, noting that it could be confused with the chanterelle by the inexperienced, but ... He reported that it appeared in the fir tree forests around... Just a thought, dunno if it works.

I rejigged it like this though I think Sasata preferred to keep all the meanings in the one section. I can see pros and cons either way Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What distinguishes var. nana and var. robusta?

Judging by the names I'd say they were small and big respectively, yet neither is thought significant nowadays. Sasata added it. Will see if I can add something from a source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this information. Sasata (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the sentence Cystidia are absent, should there be a parenthetical explanation of the word cystidia as there is for basidia?

added...though I wonder about this as we're saying they're not there and hence less relevant to article I suppose....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there should not be hyphens here: forked gills that are saffron- to orange-coloured. (I googled this! [2])

ok removed (didn't feel strongly about this anyway) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this is a confusing 'its': The false chanterelle can be distinguished from the true chanterelle (Cantharellus cibarius) by its more orange colour. How do you feel about "the former's"?

Hmm, makes the sentence sound a bit laboured to my ears. The current version doesn't come across as ambiguous to me though Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber Just for easy reference, I'm going to copy the sentence here:

The false chanterelle can be distinguished from the true chanterelle (Cantharellus cibarius) by its more orange colour, brown base to the stipe, velvety cap surface, forked gills rather than gill-like ridges, softer thinner flesh, and lack of the characteristic apricot-smell.

Would you consider this wording (but keep reading before you decide)? –

The false chanterelle can be distinguished from the true chanterelle (Cantharellus cibarius) by its orange colour, brown stipe base, velvety cap, forked rather than gill-like ridges, softer (and thinner) flesh, and lack of apricot smell.

It's a little more concise, and the items are more parallel in structure. The reason I put "and thinner" in parentheses is because I'm trying to get as close to parallel structure as possible. Most of the phrases are now adjective + noun. "Brown stipe base" works because no comma is needed between "brown" and "stipe", and "stipe base" is kind of the noun for the adj. + noun pairing. (I would even like to leave out "rather than gill-like". If someone wants to learn what kind of ridges the true chanterelle has, s/he can read the article. By listing only the distinguishing characteristics of the false chanterelle, it makes it clear that they are different from those of the true chanterelle.) The ideal sentence would be even more concise:

The false chanterelle can be distinguished from the true chanterelle (Cantharellus cibarius) by its orange colour, brown stipe base, velvety cap, forked ridges, softer flesh, and lack of apricot smell.

(To me, looking at the photo of the true chanterelle, the true chanterelle is yellow, not orange, but if you feel that both could be called orange, then, instead of "more orange colour", I would recommend "more intensely orange colour". "More orange colour" is not particularly clear or elegant.) Corinne (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, went with "deeper orange colour" as despite the photos, the chanterelle has been described as yellow-orange or orange-yellow, also the gills of this species are gills not ridges so "forked gills rather than gill-like ridges" is about as succinct as we can get while keeping accurate. I did the parenthetical bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edibility section has a little bit of trouble with flow I think. If I were to rearrange it, I'd put the Extracts made from Nigerian collections sentence after the David Arora speculates (with a 'however'). Then I'd put Some people experience gastrointestinal symptoms after eating it, possibly due to its high levels of the sugar alcohol arabitol. Then finish up with where and how it's eaten.

Have rearranged this section in line with your suggestions. Sasata (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

done...more tomorrow...sleep now.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, excellent work. No serious shortcomings; I have no problem supporting now regardless of how these ideas are handled. delldot ∇. 07:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, thanks for the hard work! delldot ∇. 00:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Prose are fine, source check conducted on refs 11, 14 and 17, check out, no issues. Refs are all reliable as far as I can tell ie academic sources that have been peer reviewed. That said, I'm not a botanist, though I sometimes play one on TV. Ceoil (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

your changes look ok. thx for support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- promoting but could you guys pls check the duplinks and see if they're really all necessary... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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