Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fomitiporia ellipsoidea/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 SandyGeorgia 19:38, 11 September 2011 [1].

---

Fomitiporia ellipsoidea

Fomitiporia ellipsoidea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Fomitiporia ellipsoidea/archive1

Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Unlike my last nomination, this species is actually an important and interesting one: it produces the largest fruit bodies in the world. When Fomitiporia ellipsoidea was described a few years ago, it looked destined to remain obscure, of interest only to those few mycologists concerned with Chinese polypores. However, a few months ago, it was announced that an enormous fruit body had been found, weighing half a tonne, and the mainstream press around the world picked up on the story- it even appeared on the news section of the main page. I feel that the article is ready for FA status; I've got everything I can from the sources and even managed to get hold of a picture. Thanks to Sasata (talk · contribs) for a thorough GA review, to Danaman5 (talk · contribs) for translation of a Chinese article, to The Pink Oboe (talk · contribs) for the map image and to Dr. Bao-Kai Cui for the release of a free photo of the fruit bodies. J Milburn (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• No issues were revealed by copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 7: page(s)?
  • It's the whole thing, really; I'm just making sure it's clear which one is the "original description". Should I give the whole page range?
• Ref 16: check punctuation
  • Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
• Money 2011: journal name should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Thanks for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 14:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments. Nice to see a BE fungus! A few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• noted because of the discovery of a very large fruit body, the largest ever recorded — clunky, a specimen of which had the largest fruit body ever recorded?
  • Changed. J Milburn (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Very large" is overworked throughout this article,
  • Removed one. At the GAC, Sasata commented on the use of different words meaning the same thing in this regard. J Milburn (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• hard, woody fruit bodies that are resupinate, and remain hard and woody — repeats "hard and woody"
  • Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• 5 and 8 pores per millimetre, with a somewhat thick space between. — How thick can it be with up to eight per mm?
  • Removed. That part of the description is odd. J Milburn (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• it is hard and woody (again)
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• Methyl blue — why caps, unlike methyl violet or methylene blue,?
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Similar species" — has too many "however"s
  • Removed two. J Milburn (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• I'd move the map to the right, it breaks subheading on my screen
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
• You have two conversions of hectares, but they should be to acres (US unit), not m2 (another metric unit)
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• No further concerns, changed to support above, good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Support from Ucucha, with some minor comments:

• "F. psedopunctata"—not pseudopunctata?
  • Done. Checked the others, too. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
• You can do better than those two maps just showing the provinces.
  • I've made a request. J Milburn (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Should be easy to do with a variant of User:Ucucha/Mapper. Ucucha (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I have taken the liberty of replacing the previous maps with the map created by Derfel73 (talk · contribs).--Danaman5 (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Do we need the synonyms of the oak on which they found the fruiting body?
  • I can remove them if you like- there was some confusion. The original source used Cyclobalanopsis patelliformis, but Cyclobalanopsis is usually recognised as a subgenus of Quercus, and, annoyingly, that name was recently demoted to a synonym of Q. patelliformis. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I think that sort of information is better placed in a footnote, or a hidden comment in the wikitext. Someone reading about this fungus doesn't need to know about instability in oak taxonomy. But it's not a major point. Ucucha (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I've removed it. J Milburn (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
• The discussion of Armillaria seems rather too long to me.
  • I've trimmed it a little. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
    • To me, it's still too much (I'd only say something like "Some Armillaria are also large, but their individual fruiting bodies remain small."), but happy to defer to you. Ucucha (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I think it's quite important to provide the context- the journal article does so, and it's telling that someone posted on the talk page when it appeared on the main page, complaining that F. ellipsoidea wasn't the biggest, and describing an Armillaria species. J Milburn (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Overall, it's good work: well-written and using all the reliable sources I could find about the species. But you're saying Gymnopilus maritimus wasn't interesting? Ucucha (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments - having a read-through now. Queries below.Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The pair named the species Fomitiporia ellipsoidea. - short, crisp sentences are good, but this might be a little too abrupt. I must admit I can't find anything to connect it with as possibly a little long if connected with the following sentence (not a deal-breaker this as nothing jumps out as a clear-cut improvement)

I've rejigged the paragraph slightly. J Milburn (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Aha, nice fix that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

why is ellipsoid in italics rather than quotation marks? It looks a little confusing juxtaposed to italicised latin words... (?)

Adjusted. J Milburn (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I'd link "polypore"

Done. J Milburn (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

any reason why " 8 millimetres (0.3 in) " is unabbreviated?

It's the first time the word is used. I'll abbreviate it if you think it'd be better. J Milburn (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's just a pretty common standard abbreviation - I think the conformity gained by abbreviating it is a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. J Milburn (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The shiny hymenium surface.. - looks a little funny as hymenium is a noun yet it is in an adjectival position sentence wise. I think if we make this "The shiny spore-bearing (or spore-producing) surface, or hymenium,..." (or you could have "hymenium" in parentheses) makes it more accessible to the reader without losing meaning.

Rephrased slightly. J Milburn (talk) 13:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking good otherwise. Easy fixes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments and support. J Milburn (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Support With COI as GA reviewer and fungus fan. I carefully reread the article again, and have a few more suggestions for prose tweaks. Sasata (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your thoughts and support. J Milburn (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• in the first sentences, fruit body pipes a link to Sporocarp (fungi), while in the second sentence, the fruit body is defined as a basidiocarp. Both are technically accurate, but perhaps something might be done about the potentially confusing repetition?
  • Rephrased, better?
• "…readily differentiated microscopically from other, similar species." not sure if the comma is needed.
  • I think it is, but I know I use a lot of commas. J Milburn (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the lead is somewhat redundant with the 1st sentence (received/attracted international attention)
  • Rephrased. J Milburn (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Redundancy: "The species was first described…" and soon after "…describing it for the first time"
  • Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• "…it is firm, solid and reminiscent…" comma after solid?
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• ellipsoid is linked thrice in the article; twice will suffice
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• micrometers -> micrometres?
  • Done. Well spotted. J Milburn (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• change "wood-inhabiting fungi" to wood-rotting fungi?
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• "After their initial encounter with the large fruit body, Cui and Dai returned to it on two subsequent occasions, so that they could study it further." Does this information add much value?
  • I thought it added a little insight into the process for a non-scientist- the fact the BBC felt it was worth mentioning is perhaps illustrative. It's all too easy to imagine that people go for a walk, take a picture of something and then send it in to a magazine and it gets published; of course, the whole process is much more than this. I'll remove it if you think it's irrelevant. J Milburn (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• "… Fungal Biology, in which the findings are to be published …" now published
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Support with some minor prose tweaks listed below. Nice job. Choess (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• "ellipsoid" is a noun; I think the adjectival form "ellipsoidal" should be used throughout the article, e.g. "distinctly ellipsoidal spores" in the lead.
  • That's fair. Changed. J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• I feel as though "favorable circumstances" might be more suitable than "appropriate circumstances" in the lead to describe the conditions under which it grows large.
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• I'm not sure it's quite our place to say "further research is needed." Perhaps "Preliminary research indicates that these may have pharmacological applications"?
  • Well, see the section in the body of the article. The research is somewhat inconclusive- it was basically just a list of chemicals they found. J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• "in 2011 when it was revealed" should be "it was revealed in 2011"
  • Done. Sorry, that was left over from a recent edit. J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• "spore producing section" should be hyphenated as "spore-producing".
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• "and they measure from 4.5 to 6.1": it's not entirely clear what "they" refers to, as "The spore shape" preceding it is singular. Replace with "the spores".
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• "easily identified with the use": should read "identified by".
  • I'm not sure- it is not the actual use of the microscope that identifies it (Sally idenfied John by his long hair) but features seen with a microscope (Sally identified John with a picture of him). J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• "are also septate (possessing of septa)": I would rephrase the previous paragraph to read "The hyphae are septate (divided into separate cells by septa)" and simply say "are also septate" here.
  • I want to check my source before making any changes to that, but the website is down right now. I'll get to it soon. J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• I have one conceptual hitch in the chemistry material. As the translated article points out, "ergosterol is the main steroidal component of relatively advanced fungoid groups," so finding ergosterol in the fungus is not really noteworthy. (Indeed, the triazole antifungals work by blocking the ergosterol synthesis pathway.) Maybe say "...could be isolated from F. ellipsoidea with petroleum ether and (after defatting) chloroform. The nine compounds isolated from these extracts included the common ergosterol and its derivative ergosterol peroxide. Two of the compounds..."
  • That's fair. J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Media Review - Everything is good on this front. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - The Mycomorphbox is incomplete. Please fill it out more. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the image review. The mycomorphbox is designed for fruit bodies in the form of "mushrooms", really, and is not so appropriate for polypores. I've added another "NA". I have no information on the spore print, as one cannot really take a "Spore print" from something like this, and while I can almost assure you that it is of no more culinary interest than most woods, adding that would be original research. J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It is clear within the body of the article, but I'm not sure if you could find a way to add an "as of" date to this statement in the first sentence, so readers don't have to go looking:

• ... a specimen of which produced the largest fruit body ever recorded ...

At your discretion, since it is made clear in the body of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

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