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 User:SandyGeorgia 23:16, 10 October 2010 [1].

---

Hydnellum peckii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Hydnellum peckii/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My latest nom features the "bleeding tooth fungus", aka "strawberries and cream": it looks like candy, but contains an anticoagulant similar to heparin. Great fodder for bar trivia. I think I've done the fungus justice with this FAC nom, and would like to hear your opinions and suggestions. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant! A few comments-

• "The fungus is classified in the stirps Diabolum of the genus Hydnellum" Couple of comments- firstly, the wikt link is only singular, so why is "stirps" plural? Secondly, is there nothing on Wikipedia about it? An encyclopedia (rather than dictionary) entry would be useful here. Thirdly, the MOS says to italicise "Genera and all lower taxa (but not higher taxa)"- would "Diabolum" not constitute a lower taxa?

• The problem is that stirps in the botanical sense is not quite the same as stirps in the mycological sense, where it was used by some authors to imply a group of "closely-related" species (and the term wasn't universally adopted, or accepted). Let me think for a bit on how to deal with this; I'll see if I can find enough info to warrant creating an article to explain this. Sasata (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The common name of "bleeding tooth fungus" isn't mentioned in the taxonomy and naming section

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "often confluent, that" Semi-colon or dash?

• Dashed. Sasata (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Fruit bodies can be used to prepare dyes. The colors may range from beige when no mordant is used, to various shades of blue or green depending on the mordant added.[12]" Has it ever actually been used for this, or is it just something some scientist discovered?

• It's "highly-prized" by dye makers, according to Arora. Added. Sasata (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps a picture of an older specimen, if we have one? I came across File:Hydnellum peckii 01.JPG on Commons, and there are others on MO. On a similar note, I'm not convinced the lead image is the best- it's very dark.

• Agree; lead image swapped out, added image of older fruit body to contrast with younger one. Sasata (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate the reason for capping Douglas-fir, but why "Lodgepole Pine"?

• I'm following the inconsistent capitalization used in the tree articles :)

• Ok, now I'm following my own rules for capitalization as outlined in WP:capitalization#Animals, plants, and other organisms. Sasata (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 2008, The fungus was first reported in Iran in 2008"

• Fixed. Sasata (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps we could have all the details about European distribution/rarity together?

• Have reorganized this. Sasata (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Hydnellum peckii can bioaccumulate the heavy metal cesium. In one Swedish field study, as much as 9% of the total cesium of the topmost 10 cm (3.9 in) of soil was found in the fungal mycelium." Why? How? This useful to us? Feels a little underdeveloped.

• I added a sentence about this, and moved it down to the section now named "Chemistry", where it is less isolated.

• I've mentioned it before, but "MycoBank" should not be italicised. See WP:ITALICS. Cite web is not the best template...

• I noticed on the template talk page there's been quite a bit of discussion about whether to italicize web sites. I don't really care either way; for now I prefer just to stick the info in the templates and let other people argue whether what the output should look like. Sasata (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Same thing is true of Healing-Mushrooms.net. J Milburn (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No template, so easily fixed! Sasata (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not wildly clear at the moment in the article prose that the two synonyms were rejected.

• Now explicit. Sasata (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We have an article on Mushroom dye which may be good to link somewhere.

• linked. Sasata (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a cool looking mushroom, I'm sure this'd make a great FA. J Milburn (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. J Milburn (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - no dab links or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Images are all CC licensed with appropriate sourcing. J Milburn (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: comments addressed; sources appear to be covered comprehensively. Ucucha 13:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC) Comments from Ucucha:[reply]

• Thanks for visiting!Sasata (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• First sentence is a bit long.

• Rejigged. Sasata (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "not staining with the chemical reagent"—are there also non-chemical reagents? And please also explain "amyloid".

• Now just "reagent", and amyloid glossed. Sasata (talk)

• Why "even" in North Carolina? Also, the sentence structure suggests you are placing North Carolina in the Pacific Northwest.

• Reworded . Sasata (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 17:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I created and added an image of the structural formula of atromentin, the anticoagulative compound found in the mushroom. I hope it adds to the article! :) {{Nihiltres|talk|edits|⚡}} 04:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm of the opinion that a chemical formula adds to both the educational value and aesthetic appeal of the article. Thanks! Sasata (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Two tiny points:-

• There should be consistency about showing retrieval dates. For example, why show in ref 5 but not 3, 6 etc.?

• I've removed the retrieval date for ref 5, as it's my understanding doi links don't require them, and have copyedited all the others to be consistent in this regard. Sasata (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 14: the retrieval date is not complete

• Fixed. Thanks for checking. Sasata (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments Looks yummy, nice article, but the inevitable quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• and recently in Iran and Korea — do we know if this is range expansion, or just discovery of existing fungi?

• The mushroom flora in places like Iran and Korea are very poorly known (at least in English-language literature), so I think it's just the latter. Do you think I should de-emphasize their recent discovery in the lead? Sasata (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, your answer is what I expected, just checking Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ''stirps — I don't like this. Since it's a wiktionary link, I can't just hover, I have to follow the link. Can we have a gloss please?

• Glossed, for now. Someday there will be an article Fungal taxonomy which will have stuff like this explained. Sasata (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative names are one of the few items that I would expect to find in the lead, but not necessarily in the main text. If you want to keep the list in the text, so the names can be referenced (although they're unlikely to be challenged), why not truncate the lead to The unusual appearance of the young fruit bodies has earned the species several descriptive common names. and keep the list till later?

• I see your point, but I read somewhere (forget where exactly) that common names should be listed in the lead, soon after the scientific name (especially if these common names are redirects to the binomial). And, everything in the lead should also be in the article text. I don't see any other way to satisfy these dual requirments. Sasata (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• , well, my last two FAs, Madeira Firecrest and Zino's Petrel, only gave alternatives names in the lead, and I've never been challenged on this practice. Not a big deal though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• bulbous where it inserts into the ground — may be my ignorance, but I though mushrooms grew up from below the ground?

• Yes, I didn't mean to imply that mushrooms started growing in the air :) I changed "where it inserts into the ground" to "where it penetrates the ground", is that any better? Sasata (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ''The ectomycorrhizal structure of H. peckii has been studied in detail. They are characterized — number disagreement

• They now agree. Sasata (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Cesium — I'm not necessarily challenging this, just wanted to see if you had read note 1 for Caesium before deciding on the spelling

• Was not aware of this; have change to the recommended IUPAC spelling (and that of our own article). Sasata (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No further queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support nicely done. Dincher (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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