Talk:Hygrophorus olivaceoalbus

Hygrophorus olivaceoalbus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 11, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 14, 2012.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the fungus species Hygrophorus olivaceoalbus (pictured) is nearly extinct in France?

Comments

Some things to be clarified:

"The cap edge is initially turned off," ?

Changed to turned into.--GoP _T ^C _N 17:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found another source that allowed me to change this to "rolled inwards". Sasata (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"It is whitish and often olive brownish nattered"

Not sure what "nattered" means. Sasata (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the German article, it is an irregular detail of the stem or cap which runs zickzag-like and horizontally on the stipe like a ribbon, similar to Colubridae (Natter in German). I saw this term on English sources, so I thought it was correct. --GoP _T ^C _N 17:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"as they are taxonomical inaccurate from H. olivaceoalbus"

Underlined phrase does not make sense. Is the idea that these other species have a close resemblance, and some authorities have in the past lumped them all together as the same species? Sasata (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate may also mean "vague" I believe. This was my intentional wording, but I reworded to avoid confusion.--GoP _T ^C _N 17:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The colloidal cuticula shows a strength from 250 to 450 µm"

Could we write "The cap cuticle has a width of 250 to 450 µm"? Sasata (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I changed to this wording. Thanks for your edits! :)--GoP _T ^C _N 17:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hygrophorus olivaceoalbus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) 19:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will review, hopefully comments will be posted this weekend. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a pretty messed up confusion regarding synonymy. A. adustus cannot possibly be "illegitimate" for " not having a proper description." If it has not proper description, it is not validly published, ergo is cannot be illegiimate. I've warned you when reviewing Myriostoma about the necessity of actually looking at the sources: Batsch's name is clearly validly published, and what MycoBank actually says is that it's an illegitimate renaming of Schäffer's A. brunneus (the "Sch. XXXII" bit is a plate number reference). What goes on is that both these names are illegitimate because Fries sanctioned his own name in Systema Mycologicum 1:35 (for some unfathomable reason, it seems either this information was deleted from MycoBank, or MycoBank no longer displays place of sanctioning). On an unrelated matter, you might want to look at Lübken published papers (e.g. doi:10.1016/j.phytochem.2004.01.023 with teh discovery of thehygrophorones) rather than the German dissertation, if only for the fact they're in English. Circéus (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all I can say it's good you're around to keep me in line! I trimmed my OR for now, but will keep working on this section. Sasata (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since It's only a GA I won't do a full review, but obviously if you'd like me to I will gladly do so (and probably will end up rewriting the nomenclature/taxonomy section from scratches XD) Circéus (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Circéus, feel free to weigh in here as much as you like. I don't know a whole lot about the subject, so it's good to have an extra set of eyes. I'll probably get around to posting comments tomorrow. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please, do comment. The article is freshly translated, and I haven't had time yet to do a FAC-level lit search, but any outside improvements would be welcome ... even if it means you have to rewrite the taxonomy! Sasata (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mark Arsten: Looks good thus far, I am starting to like mushroom articles.

Lead

"The fruit bodies (mushrooms) appears from August..." Is this correct? I would have written "The fruit bodies appear from August..." (But I may be mistaken here.

You are not mistaken; fixed. Sasata (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"and its longish stalk." Is there a better word than "longish"? Or is that generally used in these articles?

Changed to "long and slimy". Sasata (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some WP:OVERLINKING issues here, North America don't need to be linked.

De-linked major geographical areas. Sasata (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"several mycologists have been skeptical regarding its taste." I'm not sure that I understand what it means to be skeptical of a taste. Is there a better word?

Changed to "opinions are divided regarding its taste." Sasata (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy and classification

This sentence feels a bit long to me: "The infrageneric classification of H. olivaceoalbus is complex: while some species are very similar to each other in appearance of the fruit body and their microscopic characteristics of the nominate taxon, the fungus H. olivaceoalbus var. gracilis shows a much smaller and partially differently shaped fruit body, but it is counted because of the surface character of its fruit body as a variety."
"The fungi of this section have greasy to slimy caps and stems. Their caps are darkish brown grey, olive or orange, and their stems are nattered or more or less distinctly ringed." Maybe move this below the table, it might flow better there.

Fruit body

The first two paragraphs of this section aren't sourced, should probably add some cites in.

Please give me a few days to work on this. The article is translated from German, and they lumped all citations at the end of the paragraph. I'll need a bit of time to figure out what facts belong to what source (or replace with my own sources at hand) and place the cites more specifically. Sasata (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, take your time. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that; I did not know that is a requirement here on enwiki. In future I will choose articles more carefully. There is one reference in that section that is on German; if you think that book is important I will ask the main contributor on dewiki.--GoP _T ^C _N 09:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally you want to shoot for one citation per paragraph (outside of the lead) at minimum. Multiple cites at the end of a paragraph are sometimes Ok, but are less than ideal. Dewiki is less strict about inline citations, right? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the dewiki is less strict. I will wait for Sasata's suggestion regarding this.--GoP _T ^C _N 18:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"often olive brownish nattered" should this be hyphenated?

Well, I think hyphens for compound modifier are not a requirement. Sasata made prior the GAN some comments regarding the use of the term "nattered". Now, do you understand it, Mark Arsten and co? Otherwise we need to reword it.--GoP _T ^C _N 09:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I think about it, I am unsure of the meaning. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I linked the words to wiktionary; the word is not common in English language but I saw it on some fungi books.--GoP _T ^C _N 18:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, well, you've taught me a new word then. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The taste and odor are mild and with no distinct smell, but turns reddish when treated with sodium hydroxide and sulfuric acid." I don't follow here, the taste and odor turn reddish? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added "but the flesh..."--GoP _T ^C _N 09:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Microscopic characteristics

Need a cite in the first paragraph.
"which if horizontally arranged shape a ixocutis and possess clamp connections" typo here.

Done--GoP _T ^C _N 09:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similar species

"H. olivaceoalbus is only definable especially through the double velum" I'm not sure "especially" is needed here.

Removed--GoP _T ^C _N 09:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

" It is remarkable that H. persoonii and H. olivaceoalbus produce different mycosterine (sterole) and their flesh react with the addition of NaOH differently (red on H. olivaceoalbus versus olive green on H. persoonii)." Is remarkable the right word here?

I removed the phrase.--GoP _T ^C _N 18:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ecology and habitat

Might want to note in the first paragraph that you're referring to North America.

Done.--GoP _T ^C _N 09:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is a bit messy here, I tried to clean some up.

Thanks for the copyedits.--GoP _T ^C _N 09:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edible mushroom

Some copyediting needed here too: "Hygrophorus olivaceoalbus finds a use especially in the kitchen, but the fungus' indistinctive taste received overall mixed reception.[19] Several mycologists criticized the elaborate removal of the slimy skin; David Arora meant the flesh's taste is insipid.[17]"

Ok a little work on sourcing and prose to do, but otherwise seems ok. Placing on hold. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. --GoP _T ^C _N 09:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, I've placed the citations more precisely (and replaced a few), and copyedited the article. Please have another look. Sasata (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the German book as it does not have any significant content, and it is furthermore too German-centric. Regards.--GoP_T^C_N 18:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've gone over it again, and I'm confident it meets GA standards at this point. ("finds a use especially in the kitchen" should probably still be rephrased though.) Images, links etc. are Ok too. Good work guy, I'll pass this now. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]