Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Polyozellus/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 14:12, 8 September 2009 [1].

---

Polyozellus

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Polyozellus/archive1

This article is about an edible blue fungus. There are more of them than you might suspect. I've exhausted my literature sources and tweaked the prose to the point of diminishing returns, and believe the article is ready to be judged for FAC. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comments -
• Is current ref 3 (Lloyd...) lacking a title for the article?
• Same for CCurrent ref 6 (Kauffmann...)?
• Same for Current ref 10 (Kawam..)
• Please double check that all your books have page numbers. I'm noticing current ref 13, 14, 16, lack them

All points above have been addressed. Sasata (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.mushroomexpert.com/polyozellus_multiplex.html

Kuo is a well-known mycological author, and on the web page in question, he lists the sources he used. I was originally going to use his page as an external link, but thought it would be better to have it as a citation somewhere, so cited the page to two non-contentious points (spore size and spore-print color). But if you still don't think it qualifies as a RS, I can easily remove it and use another source to cite those points. Sasata (talk)

I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. (You can EAT blue fungus??? Yuck!) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Some people actually like the taste too! Sasata (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Query article title the title is the genus, but it is a monotypic genus, and throughout the text refers to "this species", so why is isn't this article called Polyozellus multiplex, with the genus as a redirect? I don't know about mycology, but that would be normal for other life forms (eg Opisthocomiformes, Opisthocomidae and Opisthocomus all redirect to Hoatzin Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In the Fungi wikiproject, we typically follow the naming conventions for flora, and on this matter it states "Where a genus is monospecific (has only a single species), the article should be named after the genus, with the species name as a redirect". Sasata (talk) 07:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

So why is the article written as if it's about a species, not a genus? After the first sentence, the article refers almost invariably to "the species". Also the taxobox is a species' taxobox, not a genus box like Pyrrhocorax. It seems odd to have a title which appears to be saying "this is about a genus", and then just refer to it as a species. Maybe it's just me, but it seems very inconsistent to have the title at one taxonomic level, and the text at another - or perhaps you have been lumbered with a particularly bizarre naming convention? This is an interesting article, which I'll review in detail if I get time before I head for Canada, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point, and I've never really thought about it until now, just defaulted to the status quo, but doing it the other way does seem to be more logical. The other genus-level articles I've helped write are also written from the same perspective. I'll consult the wikiproject about this and get back to you. Sasata (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: I initiated discussions at the relevant WikiProjects here and here. Sasata (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009

Seems to have opened a can of worms at the latter site. Sorry to cause such grief - I want to support, but can't get past this stumbling block. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

While you're doing that, a couple of other things Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Generally US spelling, eg "gray", "color", but also has BE "centimetre"

The convert templates now produce US spelling. Sasata (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• It has been found in North America and eastern Asia should this be is found, or is its range collapsing?

Refactored sentence to read "Its range includes North America and eastern Asia, where it is found growing on the ground..." Sasata (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• compound structure of the stem ... which has more simple stem structures. Also, what's wrong with "simpler"?

Refactored sentence so that the correct use of singular/plural is more evident: "... who thought the compound structure of the stem to be a sufficiently unique characteristic to warrant it being separated from Cantharellus species, which have simpler stem structures." Sasata (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• what's the connection between polyozelin and knyapcin? It sounds as if they are closely related, but not explicit.

I added a link to help clarify that the kynapcins are chemical derivatives: "... revealed similar derivatives of polyozellin, each with different chemical properties" Sasata (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Fine, would it be better, worse, or just wrong to write as revealed similar dibenzofuranyl derivatives?

Better! Added. Sasata (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've meddled, please check

Edits looks good, thanks for the help. Sasata (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Support I'm going away tomorrow so it's decision time. I'm reluctant to oppose or withhold support simply on the genus/species issue, especially as it's a project thing. I still think it's illogical, but not your fault. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Jim. There doesn't seem to be any consensus to changing it to the species name, but I suspect the idea will be revisited later when more monotypic genera pass through FAC scrutiny. Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from J Milburn

I'm making a list, but I can't see there being that many points...

• First of all, I fully support the MushroomExpert reference. The site is highly professional, and Kuo is a respected and published mycologist.
• Personally, I'd go for two paragraphs in the lead, but if you feel that would be too much detail, I'll happily defer to your judgement.

Split the lead into two and filled it out a bit. Sasata (talk)

• "or in Alaska, the black chanterelle." comma after "or"?

Yes. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Who's Elizabeth Woodworth? A botanist?

Not completely sure; I vaguely recall reading somewhere that she was a student around this time, and doing fieldwork for someone else, but will leave as is until I can find a source. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Alexander H. Smith and Elizabeth Morse" Again, I'm assuming they're a pair of mycologists? How about "mycologists Alexander H. Smith and Elizabeth Morse"?

Sure. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• "thelephoric acid" I'd normally expect a wikilink- is there anything to say about this?

Added bit in text ("...and the presence of thelephoric acid, a mushroom pigment common in the family"), and also started stub, as it's notable enough to deserve its own article. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is Index Fungorum definitely reliable? Also, why italics?

Removed italics, also added link to MycoBank to corroborate Fungorum's familial placement. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• "the hymenium), which" Where do those brackets/parenthesis open? Is that a typo?

Yes, fixed. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Do we have a picture of a dark Alaskan specimen? The infobox image looks pretty dark- perhaps clarify whether that is one of the darker specimens in the image caption?

It's not Alaskan, just a dark specimen, but within the color range I've seen in other pictures. I'll look around to see if there's a free pic of a black Alaskan version (but I doubt it). Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• "brittle, breaking easily" Tautology?
• "ellipsoid" Not a common word- link?
• "nonamyloid" not sure I like the fact half of the word in wikilinked- also, shouldn't that have a dash?

Yes, I dashed it (which hopefully makes the 2nd-half linking more tolerable). Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• "iodine" linky.
• "acyanophilous" Again- link? Explanation?

It was previously, but I can see why it was missed because of my ambiguous placement of punctuation. Fixed. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• "filamentous" Ditto. The section is appropriately technical (I do not support dumbing down), but we do need to try and make the technical terms accessible to the non-expert reader.
• "cuticle" Ditto.
• "(the pileipillus)" Is this "also known as the ...", or "in this case, the ..."? If the latter, what precisely is a pileipillus?
• "septa" Again, technical.
• "trumpet- or tubular shaped" Does "tubular" not also need a dash? (Not red hot on dashes...)
• ""fragrant chanterelle", Cantharellus odoratus," How come this common name is in quote marks, but others aren't? Personally, I wouldn't use them- your choice.
• Mention Alaska in distribution?
• "and is cultivated in Asian countries such as Korea, Japan, and China." It's cultivated in China, but has never been collected wild? Clarification would be good.
• "preserved by drying.[23]" Any affect on the taste? You mentioned a change in smell above, I think.
• "Alzheimer's disease" linky
• "compound polyozellin—isolated and purified from P. multiplex" too technical for me to really comment, but would that not be better as something like "compound polyozellin—a chemical which can be isolated and purified from P. multiplex"? Also, is that chemical unique to this species?
• What's kynapcin? Link or explanation?

"...similar dibenzofuranyl derivatives of polyozellin, each with different chemical properties, including kynapcin..." Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• "extract" Looks like overlinking (contrary to what I said above!)

I used extract 3 times in the article and have now linked at first mention. I think its a useful link in this case, as it gives explanatory background that helps understand the statement. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 18- could you clarify that it is Mushroom Expert? Currently no publisher listed.
• The Pilz reference is only used once- perhaps move it into the notes section? Or is it being used as a "general" refernece?

Good eye. Was supposed to be 2 separate page refs from that source. Fixed. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is Gen. Tech. Rep. a journal? Full name?

Have unabbreviated it so it matches the title on the cover.

That's what I'm seeing now, hope it proves useful :) J Milburn (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

All other points you raised above and to which I've not explicitly replied, I agree with and have made changes based on your suggestions. Thanks for your careful reading! Sasata (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Technical read! Because the article is so small, some paraphrasing of the technicalities could make the article more accessible to the lay reader.

• Can we have "earthfans" liked to the relevant Wikitionary article?

Earthfans is a common name applied to the Thelephoraceae family, which is linked a bit higher up in the paragraph. Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hum, OK, but I wanted a link on earthfans specifically. GeometryGirl (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've now unlinked Thelephoraceae, made a redirect for "leathery earthfans" to Thelephoraceae, and linked to this. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Should 'Alaska' be linked?

It was linked twice, in the Habitat and distribution, and in the description. I've now changed so that it's only linked once, at its first occurrence in the History and Taxonomy section. Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The first occurrence, in the lead, is not linked. GeometryGirl (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Now linked in lede. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Should 'polyozellin' be redlinked?

Sure, why not. I dislink red-links, so it will likely compel me to make an article for the compound :) Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Great. GeometryGirl (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• "they appear translucent (hyaline)"

'hyaline' is placed here in brackets a bit bluntly. Maybe add a few words to explain what is hyaline or why it is relevant to the sentence

Changed to this "Viewed microscopically, they are hyaline, meaning they appear translucent or colorless." Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Great. GeometryGirl (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Should 'cuticle' or 'pileipillus' be linked?

Have now redlinked pileipillus, article coming soon. Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Great. GeometryGirl (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Update: there was an article already, I had the word spelled incorrectly (should be pileipellis). Sasata (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• but not at all the cell partitions (septa)

Same as above, 'septa' is put here too bluntly

I've taking the word septa out of the sentence, but have instead linked to it via "cell partitions". Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Great. GeometryGirl (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Should 'extracts' be linked?

It's linked at first use in the "Bioactive compounds" section. Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it should be linked. Actually, I think this is a common word that should not be linked. GeometryGirl (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I thought it might be useful, but you're the second person to point this out (see comment by JMilburne above), so I have unlinked it. Sasata (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, the articles I write often border on "too technical", and it's very useful to have commentary from a non-specialist. Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support (moral or otherwise as wikiproject fungi member) I am happy with Kuo as a reference for the reasons J Milburn outlined above, I feel this is exhaustive and the prose straddles the line between accuracy and accessibility well. Well done, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• More comments As requested on my talk page, I'll give the article another look.
• "blue- to purple-colored clusters of vase- or spoon-shaped caps with vein-like"

A large concentration of dashes there! A bit difficult/unnatural to read.

The hyphen usage is correct (compound modifiers and suspended hyphens, as per hyphen, but I've changed vein-like to veiny, hope that helps. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "A monotypic genus, it" and "An edible species, it"

A bit of a repetitive construction for the lead

Changed the wording of the second example. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "purposes. P. multiplex"

The two dots next to one another is slightly disturbing. Maybe rearrange or expand P.

Have used the full name so the sentence doesn't start with P. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "up to 1 meter (3.3 ft)"

you abbreviate cm, in, ft but not meter

In general, I try to unabbreviate the first usage so there's no ambiguity, then abbreviate all examples after that. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "30 centimeters (11.8 in)"

another catch

As per above. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "more typically"

redundant?

Probably. Changed to "usually". Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "nearly as long"

Ambiguous, is that 'almost as long' or 'a bit longer'?

Now "almost as long". Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Can you please Annotate as many pictures as possible? That would REALLY help.

Hmmm, did not know about this feature, but it looks pretty cool. However, I'm not sure what kind of annotation would benefit the reader here... could you give an example? Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe precisely locate the "fruting body", the "hymenophore", the "individual caps", the "white powdery accumulation of spore deposit", the "hymenium", the "stem", the "tomemtum", etc. Right now, I can't visualize very well what's where on the fungus.

• "5.5–8 µm" and "3 to 5 cm"

Sometimes a dash, sometimes a 'to'. Be consistent.

Good point. All are dashes now. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Scale your pictures.

By this I mean do something like File:Jumping_spider_with_prey.jpg.

Good idea in theory, but I didn't take the pictures, so don't know the scale. I'm hoping the description information will give the reader a sense of the dimensions of the fungus. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The black chanterelle is edible"

Any specific/interesting recipes out there?

Maybe, but I'm pretty sure that's outside the purview of a WikiPedia article :) Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• I realize only 50% of the pictures are of the actual species.

True, but there's not a lot of free pics available, and the two that are there are by far the best ones I could get. The two other similar-appearing species are discussed in their respective sections, so I think are justified. Sasata (talk)

• What does the fruiting body look like?

I was hoping that the "Description" section covers this adequately. Is there something you think is missing? Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "kynapcin-12,[36] kynapcin-13 and -28,[37] and -24"

Ok, so what is kynapcin, why is it interesting? Maybe add a link/expand.

"Chemicals that inhibit PEP have attracted research interest due to their potential therapeutic effects.[35] Further analyses of extracts from P. multiplex revealed similar dibenzofuranyl derivatives of polyozellin, each with different chemical properties, including kynapcin-12..." Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "water fraction"

Add a link?

I just removed it as unnecessary obfuscation. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "a tendency for increase in the molecule glutathione"

Molecules don't increase! (Well, that's not what you meant, right?)

Is now "...and increased the abundance of the molecule glutathione." Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "by initiating a sequence of events leading to a cell's death"

That doesn't sound good. Maybe clarify that it leads to the death of tumorous cells

Have hopefully clarified by inserting a word thusly "... by initiating a sequence of events leading to a damaged cell's death."

• "Skeletal formula of polyozellin"

This caption ought to have a reference.

Good idea. Done. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "gastric cancer"

Link? Is this the same as stomach cancer?

Yes, linked and simplified. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "It also increased the expression of the gene p53"

The referenced thing by 'it' is a bit far away. Grammatically speaking it may even refer to "The study" from the previous sentence.

Changed "It" to "The extract"

• "fragrant chanterelle, Cantharellus odoratus"

Doesn't this species deserve a link?

Yes, it certainly does. Currently a redlink, but that'll change soon. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "but it is orange"

The 'it' is confusing here. The sentence reads better without it.

Have refactored the sentence. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "is similar is shape"

typo

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "and light violet to pink in color"

'in color' is a bit redundant, but no big deal

Redundancy removed. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "mutualistic"

Isn't that a common word? If you think it's a bit of a fancy words, maybe link to Wiktionary.

My guess would be that the average reader wouldn't know what the word was, and the linked article is decent. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "plant species"

'plants' reads simpler

Agreed. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Polyozellus multiplex is an ectomycorrhizal species, meaning that the hyphae and mycelia of the fungus grow in a mutualistic association with the roots of plant species"

Good faith attempt to explain the concept of "ectomycorrhizal", but instead of having to following one link, I now have to follow two! (Namely 'hyphae' and 'mycelia'.)

Ok, I took out mycelia, the definition is close enough for this purpose. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "spruce and fir"

These plants seeem to be important for the article. Can we have a picture of both put aside (like in here, for example).

Ok, done. That's a handy template. In the caption, I didn't include the specific names of the trees, as it's distracting extra info, but instead linked each picture to its respective species article. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Greek words poly meaning "many", and oz, meaning "branch""

Are poly and oz really full words, or just prefixes etc.? Maybe remove 'words'. Also, Wiktionary link poly and oz!

Not sure if they're words or not, so removed the word "words" from the sentence. Can't really wikt-link them as they are Greek and the English word has a different meaning (eg "oz" = ounce). Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Craterellus cornucopioides is a lookalike species"

This caption shouldn't contain a full stop.

True - fixed. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• The (small) section Antitumor properties uses the word 'increase(d)' three times.

Thanks to Roget and his thesaurus, increase is now only used once. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Fruit bodies may be preserved by drying."

Is there a reason this is not 'fruting bodies' (as elsewhere in the text)?

"Fruit body" and "fruiting body" are used pretty much interchangeably in the literature, but to be sure I checked the Dictionary of the Fungi, and saw that they endorse "fruit body", so changed all instances in the article to be consistent with that. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "extreme growth form"

Add a link?

Ok, linked to Plant life-form which is a synonym for the same concept. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• What would really be awesome is a picture a some packaged (for commercial purpose) Polyozellus.

Or maybe a picture of a dish containing Polyozellus!

Yes, those would be good. Or a picture of a basketfull being sold at an open market in China. I poked around the 'net a bit, but no luck. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "by Elizabeth Woodworth"

Is this information really important/necessary?

In retrospect, nah. I hope the ghost of Elizabeth does not come to haunt me for failing to recognize her part in the discovery of this species :) Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "It was later (1910) transferred"

I would prosify the bracketed date.

Ok. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "In 1920, part of a Japanese collection compiled by A. Yasuda was sent to mycologist Curtis Gates Lloyd, who believed it to be a new species and named it Phyllocarbon Yasudai."

What does 'it' refer to? 'part of a Japanese collection'?

Sentence recast for less ambiguity. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• In History and taxonomy a big part is dedicated to taxonomic reclassifications based on the macroscopic features of Polyozellus. But have any genetic studies been made to help clear up the debate? This is not mentioned. GeometryGirl (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

No genetic studies that I know of. But I also don't have a source that explicitly says that no DNA studies have been done, so would be uncomfortable putting a statement like that in the article. Sasata (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Fixing these details is great, thanks for the close reading. Sasata (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

More comments from J Milburn, I'll see if I can see anything else!

• "he noted "the plant is a remarkable one " shouldn't that be "he noted that "the plant is a remarkable one "?

I think either is fine (or maybe the original way needs a colon?), but I've inserted "that".Sasata (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• According to the MOS, we shouldn't start sections with left hand images, as you have in the description section.

It's my understanding that only applies to level 3 subheadings, and Description is level 2. Sasata (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right there, my mistake. Always seemed an odd guideline to me anyway... J Milburn (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps the mycomorphbox should be moved to the description section, rather than placed in the header?

I'm not sure what benefit that would have... plus I think it might mess with the FixBunching template, which might lead to further problems with picture placement and bunched-up edit links. Sasata (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're probably right. J Milburn (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "it Phyllocarbon Yasudai.[3]" Is that capital correct? Is there any particular reason the specific name is capitalised? I've never seen a capital even when it's named after someone.

Yeah, it's a bit odd, but Lloyd was a bit of an oddball to begin with. I was just following the original source, but I just checked Bigelow's 1978 paper, and he doesn't use a capital, so I guess it's ok. Changed. Sasata (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ref 22: "Bigelo HE. (1978). "The cantharelloid fungi of New England and adjacent areas". Mycologia 70 (4): 707–56. doi:10.2307/3759354. ISSN 00275514." Unless I'm reading the template wrong, you're citing 49 pages for two facts. Any chance of narrowing it a little?

Ok, have included the specific pages numbers in the citation. Sasata (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The black chanterelle is edible," Why is it suddenly known by its vernacular name? I'd stick to the specific name the whole way through.

Ok. Sasata (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "(which includes the genera Cantharellus, Craterellus, Gomphus, and Polyozellus)" Craterellus is already linked a few lines above.

Unlinked. Sasata (talk)

• Perhaps a big ask, but some more information about it in the Asian countries would be interesting. The article currently seems to lean towards the American populations- is it as rare in Asia? Why is it in both Asia and America?

Yes, it would be ideal to reduce systematic bias by including some info from Asian sources. Unfortunately, my Chinese is limited to a couple of sentences, and the English language sources concentrate largely on their own areas. Sasata (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Poking around a bit more, I was able to add this: "The disjunct distribution of this species in North America and East Asia has been noted in a number of other fungal species as well." Let me know if that helps or just leaves you hanging for more. Sasata (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it does improve it. I thought of one of your other GAs when I read it. I wonder why that happens so often... J Milburn (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "No further reported collections of the fungus were made until 1937" No further collections were recorded? I'm sure people still found/picked/ate it, just no one bothered to write about it.

Now "No further collections of the fungus were reported..." Sasata (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• It mentions it is collected for sale in China, but doesn't mention that it is found there in the distribution section?

Good catch, I missed putting that in there somehow. Sasata (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Now you say it is sold in "Asian countries including...", listing all the Asian countries in which it is found. Seems a little odd to me, that's like saying "letters in the word pie, including p, i and e." See what I mean? J Milburn (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... no (but I haven't had my morning coffee yet). To me it seems more like: "Various letters have been used to construct words related to baking products, including p, i and e." :) Please feel free to change the wording yourself. Sasata (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• "poly meaning "many", and oz, meaning "branch"." When quoting a single word as the word itself, such as in translations, should italics not be used? See Wikipedia:ITALICS#Words_as_words- the examples seem a little ambiguous.

Ok, I'll buy that. Italicized. Sasata (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• There still seems to be a little bit of inconsistency with common names in quote marks- there are the Polyozellus common names in quote marks, then other common names without them, then the lonely "The "pig's ear Gomphus", species".

Yes, I admit I'm inconsistent with that. I've seen common names used with and without quotes in the original sources and usually just go with whatever's written. For consistency, I've removed all quotes from the article. Sasata (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Caption "Craterellus cornucopioides is a lookalike species" forms a complete sentence- full stop?

GGirl removed the verb for me, so it should be ok now. Sasata (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Has the species ever actually been used to combat tumors? Or has research merely found in contains a chemical? Perhaps the chemical when isolated from other locations has been used? "Research conducted in 2003 suggests that extracts from Polyozellus multiplex have suppressive effects on stomach cancer." Suggests that it has been done, if not, perhaps "Research conducted in 2003 suggests that extracts from Polyozellus multiplex would have suppressive effects on stomach cancer." would be better.

Sure. Used "may" instead of "would". Sasata (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hope these will be useful. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks JM! Sasata (talk) 14:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support My comments are now addressed. Congrats. (Please note that, not being an expert, I've only reviewed the prose, comprehensibility and neutrality.) GeometryGirl (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I feel this article meets our featured article criteria, and sits comfortably among the best examples of our work. As ever, Sasata has improved the article drastically based on suggestions from myself and others. J Milburn (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Images: All shots freely licensed, with appropriate license info and relevant author details. There don't appear to be any issues. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

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