Talk:Saproamanita thiersii/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 14:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I propose to review this article and will be starting shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

First reading

I'll leave the lead for the moment and come back to it later.

• In the taxonomy section, you mention that Thiers first described this species and Cornelis Bas later named it "Amanita thiersii". What was its previous name?

Sorry but no sources mention that. Could not we rewrite it such that we could fix the shortcoming?

• "It was given the name Amanita thiersii after him in 1969 by Dutch mycologist Cornelis Bas." - This sentence needs rephrasing to get rid of the word "him".

Done.

• "... tending from verging on the conical to flattish ..." - I don't think you need both "tending" and "verging".

Fixed

• It seems a bit contradictory to say "The cap is white in color and dry" and later "The body is very sticky to touch."

Rewritten and fixed.

• " ... a stuffed to hollow stem" - What does this mean?

Fixed.

• " ... the only difference is the absence of clamps in A. thiersii." - What are clamps?

I have linked it to clamp connection.

• The section "Similar species" mentions several things not directly connected to similarity. Perhaps it could be combined with "Identification"

Done.

• What happened when the Kays confused two species?

Added.

• "The mushroom can be easily identified by its fluffy cap, though it may get washed away in rain." - I don't think you mean that the cap gets washed away.

Ah, no! Fixed.

• The section "Ecology and habitat" is part singular and part plural. Either use "It" all the way through or use "They" but don't mix the two.

Fixed.

• The section "Genome project" is rather confused.

I believe most of the confusion was due to the carbon acquisition part, so I moved it to the introduction in "Ecology and habitat". I have tried my best to simplify the things, is it satisfactory now?

Having looked at the source material for the genome section, I do not think your interpretation of the research is altogether correct. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• The access dates in the "References" section are in more than one format.

Fixed.

• It would be good to have ISBN numbers for the books in the Reference section.

Done.

• That will do for the time being. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for beginning the review. It is such a relief that somebody turned up at last after a month's wait! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a good start. I will look again to see how it is shaping up when you have dealt with Sasata's comments. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but I couldn't keep my hands off! I think some more things need to be addressed before this should be considered for promotion to GA. Sasata (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead

• "fruiting body" following the usage in the Dictionary of the Fungi, we typically use "fruit body" (check throughout article)

Fixed.

• link volval, gills, stem, ring, µm, fairy ring, spore print, cellulose, poisonous

Done.

• "The gills are unevenly distributed, of different lengths and numbers." not quite sure what is meant by the uneven distribution, or the differing "numbers"

Fixed.

• make the usage of stem or stipe consistent

Fixed.

• "about 1 cm (0.39 in) thick" make sure the sig figs coming out of the convert is the same as those going in (check throughout article)

Sorry, but I have trouble with the sigfig template. Could you help in this?

The template usage is explained in template:convert. Compare the following:

{{convert|1|cm|in|abbr=on}} produces 1 cm (0.39 in)

{{convert|1|cm|in|1|abbr=on}} produces 1 cm (0.4 in). The "1" specifies how many digits are shown after the zero (and rounds up or down if necessary). In other circumstances, the parameter "sigfig=" is used to produce the desired output. Sasata (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Done.

• number ranges need endashes, not hyphens

Fixed.

• avoid using jargon like "globose" and "subglobose" in the lead; "spherical" and "roughly spherical" is equivalent and understandable to the uninitiated

Fixed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• if the species was originally described by Theirs, why is the authorship attributed to Bas? (hint: it's in the Wolfe et al. (2012) paper)

I have internet access to the paper, not the original item. Would be gratified if you could see the paper.

• infrageneric taxa should be italicized (e.g. section Vittadiniae)

Done.

• if it's commonly known as "Thiers' lepidella", why is it in the section Vittadiniae rather than Lepidella?

Sorry, no info about that.

• "…in honour of its founder in 1969." Thiers didn't "found" it, he described it

But could it be said its "describer"?

• since this is a North American species, American English should be used

Fixed.

• "Bas has created the stirps (an informal ranking above species level)" I've corrected this before in another one of your mushroom articles: stirps is a ranking below species level

Thank you.

• the common name should be mentioned in Taxonomy (with a reference)

Done.

Description

• "The cap is white in colour" (another instance later)

Fixed.

• "(conico- or plano-convex)" unexplained jargon
• link flesh, universal veil
• squamulose? glabrous? fibrillous? (should that be fibrillose?)
• "…a feature that occurs in A. aureofloccosa." why is this relevant?

Removed.

• "A ring is present, at first densely covered with the volva, but can be easily broken at maturity." the use of "but" implies some kind of contradiction with the first part of the sentence, but I'm not sure what this is.

Fixed.

• are the spores thin or thick-walled? amyloid/inamyloid? hyaline?

Added.

• are there no other microscopic details to give? I understand that description of microscopic structures is not the most fascinating reading material, but it should be at least briefly mentioned as it's important in Amanita taxonomy

I couldn't get much literature about it.

• link edible

Done.

• "A. thiersii and A. praegraveolens" avoid starting a new section or paragraph with an abbreviation (other instance as well)

Fixed.

• "An incident of such a confusion occurred in 1986, when Skip and Sherry Kay (future founders of Kaw Valley Mycological Association) mistook A. thiersii, which was not well-known and identified at that time, as A. praegraveolens. The description of the mushroom matched with that of A. thiersii, published in the book A Field Guide to Southern Mushrooms by Nancy Weber in 1988. So finally the confusion ended." This seems to be too much detail for this article, and is not encyclopedic. Trim to a single sentence?

Tried to.

Toxicity

• "The species is considered toxic.[9]" The source does not say this. It says "Though little is known about the toxicity or edibility of A. thiersii, it is probably poisonous." I would reword to "is suspected to be toxic". As an aside, I don't think this qualifies as a RS

I have fixed this, but as I couldn't find references saying poisoning is doubted (some say it is edible and some toxic, no one in the middle).

• "A case of poisoning due to A. thiersii had been" had been -> was

Done.

• "In a recent set of cases, three Europeans suffering from renal failure reported having ingested completely white mushrooms with ring. Toxins of A. boudieri, A. gracilior and A. echinocephala were isolated. The symptoms of the poisoning were found to be similar to those of A. thiersii, A. nauseosa and A. virgineoides.[10]" I read this paper. It's about three Europeans that ate European Amanitas. A. thiersii is only mentioned a single time in the whole article: "Similar symptoms are reported after ingestion of North and Middle American Amanita thiersii and Amanita nauseosa (both section Lepidella, [1])." I don't think this is enough to justify inclusion. Also, note that they say the species is in section Lepidella (see above)

So should this be eliminated?

• Yes; I don't think it's really relevant to this species. Sasata (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Done.

Ecology and habitat

• link Mississippi River Basin,

Done.

• "It is unlike the other Amanita species that are partners with trees.[12]" "partners" is vague, should say mycorrhizal

Fixed.

• the "Genome project" subsection doesn't really read well. Examples:

• "These mushrooms can live entirely on cellulose and can be grown easily in culture." I doubt the first part is true (even though Rod says that on his webpage); fungi needs vitamins and minerals too. Probably more accurate to say something like "can live entirely on cellulose as a source of carbon" or similar. Would also change "easily" to "readily".

Fixed.

• "Using this data, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Harvard University are jointly working to interpret the A. thiersii genome." Using what data?

Fixed.

• "…so that these decomposing enzymes can be utilized in degrading cellulose in plant cell walls." For industrial or bioremediation purposes? Please elaborate.
• I think another picture of the mushroom would be better suited to this article than a picture of the Joint Genome institute. There's a few available on Mushroom Observer.

I have unknowingly blundered much with image policies in my early days, so I didn't dare uploading any more images. If they are allowed by Mushroom Observer then I am readily uploading a few. Thanks for your suggestion.

• "… have a few derived characteristics." Please explain

This is even beyond my understanding. Information must be there in the original papers.

• do you have the Wolfe et al. (2012) paper? It seems like there's quite a bit of information in there that could be used to enhance this article.

Sorry but I have only web access. I believe with its help many of these issues can be resolved. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I just sent this paper, sorry about the delay! Sasata (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• I had in no way finished my comments because I also thought the article needed much work to reach GA standard. I believe that Sainsf is not a native English speaker and I was going to suggest that I gave the article a thorough copyedit at some stage. It will be helpful having you keeping a mycological eye on the process, Sasata. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Certainly; didn't mean to step on any toes. I will keep my fungus eye on the progress ;) Sasata (talk) 18:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I am no native English speaker, but I make my attempt at fungi articles. I know I need much guidance still, and am glad to have you all to help me. Anyway, I have replied to some comments, replying to all of them is much time-taking. Thanks again, Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is coming along nicely! I will do some copyediting now to make it more idiomatic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your copyedit! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 14:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have now revised and copyedited as far as the middle of "Identification". If you don't like what I have done you can revert it. I think you could omit the example of misidentification you give near the end of this section because it is - well um - confusing! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sasata asked me to upload an img or two of the fungus from Mushroom Observer, well, I too think this would be helpful in improving the article's quality. But I can't understand how to upload the img fulfilling the formalities about the copyright, source about the website. Any help? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at this image but I could not make out what its copyright status is. I don't know much about acquiring images either. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've uploaded the picture you linked to. Basically, if the license is CC-by-SA, it's fine to use, but if it's CC-by-NC-SA, it's not. Sasata (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

We shall take Sasata's help with this. From my view, most of the problems lie in the "Genome project" part. Me, I am just a student, and am afraid I can't "plunge rightly" into all the technical details. I don't know about you, but that is where I really need your help. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have rewritten the main paragraph of the section "Genome Project". See what you think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks a great deal better than my mess :D. Thank you for also rewriting Toxicity. Thanks Sasata, for uploading that much-required image; I would have a look at the papers in a day or two. I think almost all comments have been seen to. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 12:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

A few more comments

• The second paragraph in Toxicity refers to some cases of poisoning in Europe. Looking at the paper cited, the abstract has no reference to A. thiersi, and as that species is restricted to North America, is the paper relevant to this article?

This has been removed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• In the section Identification, the facts you mention are a bit isolated. Hundreds of species of fungi grow on lawns and in pasture. If you mean that because this species is white it might be mistaken for Agaricus species you should say so (with appropriate references). However, you may mean that fungi growing among grasses are in general edible in which case you should say so (with appropriate references). Or maybe you mean that, because it is growing conveniently close at hand, incautious housewives are prone to pop it in the pan? The sentence "Both A. thiersii and A. aureofloccosa have a stuffed to hollow stipe." is insufficient in itself. What do they have in common? How do they differ? Similarly, A. thiersii and A. silvifuga may both taste bitter, but do they look alike. Are there any other ways of recognising the difference between A. praegraveolens and A thiersii other than the clamps, which are presumably a microscopic feature?

Yes, they are not physical similarities which I mention, but just whatever is common in the fungi. The reference is McFarland one, which says "This unusual Amanita grows almost exclusively in grassy areas and might pose a risk for poisoning pets, children and unsuspecting adults because of its habitat". I understood it as being confused due to its growing in such a common area as a lawn or park, not that any mushroom growing there is generally edible. You are right, the second part has only such lines saying of a particular and often minor similarity - with no more discussion of it. I am afraid I don't have more information of these facts. What do you think should be done about this? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• In the Ecology and habitat section, you mention the first description from a Texas location, but what is the species range? Is it supposed to have sprung out of thin air and landed on a campus lawn? Seemingly it occurs in Mexico, does it occur anywhere else? Your reference 2 mentions 9 states in the abstract. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There is no particular range mentioned anywhere, the Wolfe ref names 5 to 7 states, which I have now added to the text. Just writing 9 states would do, I think, for we don't know which states exactly. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this update will satisfy Sasata - I could find a bit of info from the Wolfe et. al. papers about spores. I may be technically inaccurate, though I have tried my best to write the details in an easy-to-understand way and, of course, correctly. Have a look. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 11:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

More Sasata (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

• the lead indicates four states in which the species is found, but the articles says it occurs in nine states. Rather than listing them all, can it be generalized somehow?
• I don't understand what "unevenly distributed" gills means
• "They are densely packed together" the article later says they vary from "crowded to widely spaced"
• link spores
• should avoid starting a paragraph with "This" (several instances later too)
• I think the lead should indicate more explicitly that the fungus is not saprotrophic but mycorrhizal; this is a huge departure from the typical Amanita species. Perhaps take out the word "saprotrophic" from the lead sentence, and expand this to a sentence by itself.

But the line Analysis using stable carbon isotopes has proved that this mushroom is saprotrophic in nature, unlike the other mycorrhizal Amanitas' contradicts it. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I think Sasata has accidentally mixed these up. I have added the information to the lead. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I mixed them up; look fine now. Sasata (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• remember to include non-breaking spaces in short-form binomials
• link section, commonly
• "The stipe is white and measures 80–200 mm (3–8 in) by 10–20 mm (0.4–0.8 in)." specify length and width
• "The bulb at the base is slightly broader than the rest of the stipe and measures 25 by 22 mm (1.0 by 0.9 in)." ditto
• link ring; end of this paragraph needs a citation
• "the suggestion was that" whose suggestion?
• "The mushroom can be easily identified" suggest changing "easily" to "readily"
• "It has been found growing in the same lawn as Chlorophyllum molybdites." Without any context or explanation, this sentence has little value

If you want more information, the book The Elemental Composition of Chlorophyllum Molybdites and Amanita Thiersii, and Their Substrata might be having some. But I don't have access to this, I am simply suggesting. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• link the US states (that have not been previously linked)
• why is the Genome project given as a subheading of "Ecology and habitat"?
• please remove or replace the DOE joint Genome picture, it does not help the reader under this species better

If you could help uploading another picture of this mushroom then it could be replaced. But say if you have trouble - this could be just removed. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I uploaded File:Amanita thiersii 260826.jpg, which gives a view of the partial veil not visible in the other images. Sasata (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I have replaced the picture. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• link Amanita bisporigera
• explain "derived characteristics"

That is truly beyond my understanding. The source too isn't so clear about it. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Try this. Sasata (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• the Genome project section is now well-written and makes sense (thanks Cwmhiraeth!)

I have fixed all the issues you mentioned except those I have replied to here. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 09:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Nearly there! I have just read through the article as a whole and it flows much better. One last point, are the sentences I have copied below sensible or do they contradict each other? I will refer the question to Sasata as I don't have access to the source: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• "In an analysis, both monokaryotic (one nucleus per cell) and dikaryotic (two nuclei per cell) strains were isolated from fruit bodies. All spores were found to be binucleate. For the monokaryotic strain, the suggestion of the experimenting team was that the second nucleus never migrates into the germ tube." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• I think the idea is that all of the spores are supposed to be binucleate, but in the case of monokaryotic strains, the second nucleus doesn't make it into the spore. The wording here should be tweaked. Sasata (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• The distribution of this species includes Mexico (as suggested in the Toxicity section), and this should be mentioned in the lead, and in the Distribution section.

Done, but as the lead mentions none but the native state Texas, should this be added here? Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• There's still an occurrence of the unclear phrase "unevenly distributed" gills in the description section. Looking at the original source, it appears this refers to the lamellulae (short gills), but the article does not make this clear.

I am entirely removing this phrase if its meaning is so doubted. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 07:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Much improved

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Compliant

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has appropriate reference section:

   This criterion is met

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Reliable sources and well-formatted citations

   C. No original research:

   Not as far as I can tell

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Yes

   B. Focused:

   Yes

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Yes

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Article is stable

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Images are appropriately licensed

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Yes

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   GA pass

Thank you ! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 13:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)