Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Morchella rufobrunnea/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 12:29, 14 May 2014 [1].
Morchella rufobrunnea[edit]
Morchella rufobrunnea is a choice edible fungus, and one of the few morel species that has been successfully cultivated. The article is fairly short, but I think is comprehensive for a species that was "officially" described only in 1998. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 16:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage[edit]
I love seeing your mushroom articles, and I'm happy to lend a hand reviewing this one. I normally focus on reference minutiae, but with how many of these you've written, I know I'd be in for a short review if that's all I did, so I'll aim for a more comprehensive one:
- I know "new to science" is a term of art, and all, but it is probably jarring to the lay reader here, since it wasn't exactly discovered in 1998 so much as differentiated. Doubly so since the lead mentions a cultivation patent that was seemingly issued before anyone knew the mushroom existed! (Yes, obviously, that's not really how it worked, but it does rather read that way.)
- Perhaps re-order the Taxonomy section likewise? Introduce the 1986 mentions of western deliciosa first, then walk through the sequence of establishing rufobrunnea in 1998 and moving the existing mushrooms over to the new name?
- "North American morels formerly classified as deliciosa have since been divided into two distinct species, Morchella diminutiva and M. virginiana." Should that say "Other North American morels..." since rufobrunnea started its taxonomic voyage there also?
- Any details on what form of molecular analysis was used? I feel like I'm being picky asking, but I know it's been included in several other mushroom FAs (and was specifically requested by someone during mine).
- I'm not sure what the right answer is, but I know your clades aren't consistently capitalized: Esculenta clade vs. Elata Clade. Later, you have "Blushing Clade" in caps, with quotes, and I'm not sure what the distinction is there, either.
- Anything comment on what the black granules are? Or are they just a thing it does?
- Anything describe characteristics that distinguish rufobrunnea from the (now) two other species that all used to be part of North American deliciosa for the Similar Species section?
- Link pre-apothecia to something?
- You give a development process with four steps, then one with five steps. I assume the difference is the conditions involved, but it makes the section less than clear overall.
- References and reference formatting look pretty solid. Should the Stamets ref read "3rd ed." instead of "3 ed."? (I'm contractually obligated to find a nit to pick in reference formatting...).
Can't quite endorse promotion yet, but I have no doubts that the article will be there in short order. As always, nice work. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from J Milburn
- "Its known range was extended a decade later when a study determined that it was common in the West Coast of the United States, and in 2009, when it was reported growing in Israel." How about "Its range was later found to be more widely spread, when a study determined that it was common in the West Coast of the United States a decade later, and when it was reported growing in Israel in 2009." Extending the "known range" seems a little clumsy.
- For the length of the article (and aesthetically) I feel two paragraphs of lead would be best.
- "a process to cultivate M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s." How about "a process to cultivate morels now known to be M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s." or "a process to cultivate morels, including the since-described M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s." or something similar?
- "In a 2008 study by Michael Kuo, he determined" The study is the subject of the sentence, not Kuo. How about "In a 2008 study, Michael Kuo determined" or "In a 2008 study by Michael Kuo, it was determined"
- So the name Morchella deliciosa is no longer used at all? It's used elsewhere on Wikipedia, but has no article
- "although most are typically found in the narrower range, 9.0–15.5 cm (3.5–6.1 in)" Should be "although most are typically found in a narrower range, 9.0–15.5 cm (3.5–6.1 in)" or "although most are typically found in the narrower range of 9.0–15.5 cm (3.5–6.1 in)"
- You don't link "sclerotia" at the first mention (though I'd recommend keeping it linked at the second
- Not the end of the world if you don't have them, but do you have any information about differentiating this one from similar species in the US? M. deliciosa used by western American authors.[4] North American morels formerly classified as deliciosa (deliciosa? diminutiva? virginiana?) Was there anything about similar morels in the Israel paper?
- US, USA or United States?
- "Unlike the North American version that fruits for only a few weeks in the spring" This is contrary to what was said in the previous paragraph
Very strong article. J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images mostly good, but the source link on File:Morchella rufobrunnea 11174.jpg seems to be wrong. I'm also struck by what looks like atypical colouration on the lead image, but I'm happy to take your word if you're happy with it. J Milburn (talk) 13:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've swapped this for an image of a more representative specimen that also shows the bruising reaction. Sasata (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some quick comments on the sources (no spotchecks done)- You sometimes have 1 January 2000 (patents), sometimes 2000-01-01 (retrieval date). Sometimes you have "(PDF)" before the link, sometimes afterwards. Why do you italicise "California Fungi"? These are all real nitpicks, and it's possible no change is necessary. Otherwise, all sources look reliable and appropriately formatted. J Milburn (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks both very much for your comments. I've already implemented some of the easier ones, and am pondering how to best action the others. Will post a full response soonish. Sasata (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. J Milburn (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
and commentMostly of the usual high standard, but I have doubts about the grammar of A choice edible species, a process to cultivate morels now known to be M. rufobrunnea was described and patented in the 1980s. The first phrase is obviously intended to describe the fungus, but the subject of the sentence is "A process". I can't see anything else, so I'm supporting on the basis that that sentence will be fixed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "
'The first scientifically described specimens of Morchella rufobrunnea were collected in June 1996 from the Ecological Institute of Xalapa and other regions in Xalapa, - I'd introduce "Xalapa" (city) with some descriptor as it is not well known - "The (southern) Mexican city of Xalapa"? or something- Now "and other regions in the southern Mexican municipality of Xalapa" Sasata (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "
If the clades are subgeneric, should they be italicised?
reddish-vinaceous - odd construction - if meaning "red to wine-red" say so, or alternately "vinaceous (wine red)"- Done (and found out we have an article for wine (color)). Sasata (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise little to complain about....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
- Pls review duplinks and see if you really need them -- you have Ucucha's script?
- Suggest it's time to ping Squeamish Ossifrage to see if he still has any concerns. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2014 (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) 08:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.