Wikipedia:Peer review/Cyathus/archive1

Cyathus[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for March 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm intending to nominate for FAC. This would be my first FAC nom, and I'm hoping someone with more experienced WikiEyes could have a look and see if there's any MOS violations or referencing problems. I'm pretty confident about the content, but will be happy to expand or clarify if it is deemed necessary. I'm also considering making a diagram for the life cycle section (picture=1000 words), but would first like an opinion if that section is comprehensible to the average reader.

Thanks, Sasata (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from J Milburn

Yay, more fungi featured articles! Ok, here are some thoughts-

The lead is a little short- see Wikipedia:LEAD#Length. I'd personally go for another paragraph of the same size on top of the one you already have.

Lead has been expanded to two paragraphs. Sasata (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Cyathus is distinguished from other bird's nest fungi genera Crucibulum by having a distinct three-layered wall, and from Nidula by the presence of a funiculus, a cord of hyphae attaching the peridiole to the endoperidium.[2]" One line paragraph- suggest expansion or merging.

Good point. Have expanded that to clarify differences between lookalike genera. Sasata (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"4–8 mm diameter × 7–18 mm tall." Not sure about the little symbol there- why not just say "by"? I'd change it myself, but I don't know hte MoS backwards, so I'm not sure.
"of 5–15 × 5–8 µm." Again, I don't love it, but I'm not sure what the guidelines are.

I caught that habit several months ago when someone else copyedited an article I wrote, and I've just assumed since then that it was proper technique. An actual search of the relevant section doesn't readily yield the answers, so I'll change to text. Sasata (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"G.W. Martin in 1924,[11] and was later elaborated by Buller, who used Cyathus striatus as the model species to describe the phenomenon.[12] His major conclusions are summarized by Brodie:" Full names in prose?
"named cyathuscavins A, B and C," Named what? Link or explanation?
"do the polyketide compounds cyathusal A, B, and C." Again, perhaps a little technical?

Have reworded so hopefully it's clearer now. Sasata (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"C. olla is being investigated for its ability to accelerate the decomposition of stubble left in the field, thereby reducing pathogen populations and accelerating nutrient cycling through mineralization of essential plant nutrients.[33][34]" Again, the paragraph is a little short.

Expanded this section with another example. Sasata (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No other uses? None of them edible at all? None medicinal? There's no discussion of edibility at all, which I would personally expect on a complete fungi article.

Another excellent point. I've added an edibility section under "Uses", but left out a separate section on medicinal uses, as this is touched upon in the bioactive compounds section. Essentially, some of these Cyathus compounds have physiological effects that might lead to them someday being developed into products with therapeutic potential, but I didn't want to overemphasize this by putting it in a separate section. Sasata (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The genus Cyathus was first described by Haller in 1768, and was later subdivided into two infrageneric groups (i.e., grouping species below the rank of genus) by Tulasne―the "eucyathus" group, with the inner surface of the fruiting bodies folded into pleats (plications), and the "olla" group without plications.[35] Later (1906), Lloyd published a different concept of infrageneric grouping in Cyathus, describing five groups, two in the eucyathus group and five in the olla group.[36]" Again, full names in the prose (at the first mention, anyway) would be best, I think.

Will have to dig around a bit to find some first names. Have fixed what I can for now. Sasata (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest, do we have all known species listed there?

No, it doesn't have several species described since the publications of Brodie's monographs. The List of Cyathus species, when finished, will be a complete list (I hope). Still contemplating how to treat non-validly published taxa for that article. Sasata (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Brodie text is cited with the "Smith, John Q." format, as opposed to the "Smith JQ" format favoured in most other cites.

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cite 13 is Smith, JQ.
More inconsistent cites- 30 and 31 lack "Salony"'s first initial, 5 has full names, 14 has small text (perhaps use a different sort of footnote, if not citing a source?). Rest look OK.

The first appears on the original paper without an initial, the last is some chemical compound template, but I fixed the other ones. Sasata (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. I've watchlisted this page, so I may be back to offer more thoughts! J Milburn (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks kindly for your helpful comments, the article looks better already. Sasata (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added a history section. Sasata (talk) 05:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, a few more comments from the new additions-

"Greek word κύαθος," when single words are quoted, they should be in italics- this may be different as it is in Greek text, but I doubt it.

Normally, foreign words are italicized, but in this case the MOS says: "Text in non-Latin scripts (such as Greek or Cyrillic) should not be italicized at all—even where this is technically feasible; the difference of script suffices to distinguish it on the page." Sasata (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"by Schmitz," full name?

I've looked through various sources, but I can only find the first initial of his name. Am wondering if I should drop all first names in the article to make it consistent, or leave as is and hope it doesn't stick out too obviously? Sasata (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go for the latter, and add the initial if you have it. J Milburn (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"and highly regarded by subsequent researchers." And is or and was?

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's going to FAC- "and Harold J. Brodie in 1975." Cite?

Done. Sasata (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there'll be some more categories to use? I can't really find any, but I don't really know how the genus articles are categorised. J Milburn (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bunch of cats, including all of the continent-location cats, due the species' worldwide distribution. I suppose I could have added all the country location cats too, but thought this was excessive. Sasata (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 00:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)