Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amanita ocreata

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 17:25, 29 February 2008.

Amanita ocreata

[edit]
previous FAC
Check external links

Since its last nomination, it has been reviewed and subsequently listed at WP:GAN, requiring a copyedit there. Since then, a range map has been added, and a relevant external link which is not in the inline references. Otherwise, I feel this article is as comprehensive as possible, and has appropriately licenced images and a hierarchy of headings. At 26.8kb, it is somewhat shorter than other biological FAs, though plenty longer than some other FAs. Feedback encouraged. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: My problem with this article is the section on toxicity, most of which really belongs in another article. Quite simply, none of this information about poisoning is specific to A. ocreata and applies equally well as a description to amatoxin poisoning from any mushroom containing these compounds. In my opinion, most of this section should be moved to a new article, Amatoxin poisoning (or maybe the Amatoxin article), and a shorter section, with a redirect, should be left in the Amanita ocreata article. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just note here what I said last time about Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, or more specifically this essay. If this were a paper book, We'd have a poisoning section, with details under A. phalloides, or general, and then under A. bisporiga, A. ocreata etc. we'd have poisoning section - see A. phalloides or as for A. phalloides. One could also argue that the fungus has these poisons so this is what would happen if you eat it. In terms of coverage, then the most exact way to cover it would be to make a Amanita sect. phalloideae page and reserve all the detailed stuff on amatoxins for that page given that is the group of fungi which has all the toxic members (not the genus Amanita. However, one does not ingest or is poisoned by a taxonomic group of fungi.
How wikipedia (and guidebooks for mushrooms, frogs, plants, birds) have developed is with the species as the unit of division. The fact is if you eat this mushroom then the toxins contained within are likely to do these things and there is a summary of the treatment you may receive. I'd argue that laypeople are unlikely to be looking up toxins but more mushrooms in the first instance. Nevertheless I can see some stuff to prune that is less relevant. Some consensus would be good here.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't understand your reasoning here. Yes, Wikipedia isn't a paper, hence, "space limitations" aren't an issue, but the way I see it, this is just a recipe for having content forks all over the place. And, in fact, that's the situation we have now – no detailed discussion of amatoxin poisoning in the Amatoxin article, and two detailed but entirely separate discussions under Amanita phalloides and Amanita ocreata. Is that a logical arrangement of subject matter to you? It sure isn't to me. Peter G Werner (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the size of the article and where you're coming from. OK, I agree amatoxin should probably have the most detail, and it could get quite a bit more detailed than what is on the Amanita phalloides page, which is where there is most detail currently. However, the development or lack thereof of the amatoxin page is somewhat independent of what is being discussed here. Essentially I think it is worthwhile discussing in some detail (a) what happens when you eat it and (b) how it is treated. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicity is the sine qua non of the "death angel" being a featured article candidate in the first place. Throwing it out is a pretty senseless argument; do so, and there's no reason to feature this article. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about "throwing it out"? I'm talking about condensing it down to a summary, with redirect to a longer article specifically on the topic of amatoxin poisoning, which is standard procedure for specialized article sections, especially sections describing something that is shared by the subject of one or more other articles. And as for FA, I thought it was about having the most exemplary writing and organization of an article, not necessarily about "padding" it with the most content to make sure the article is a certain length. I'll also note – A. ocreata is actually a relatively rare cause of poisonings, and by that I mean within the native range of A. ocreata (California, basically), poisoning by this species is far rarer than poisoning by Amanita phalloides. Its not because it isn't a highly toxic mushroom, but because people, for whatever reason, rarely consume it by mistake compared to mistaken consumption of A. phalloides. Hence, if the "amatoxin poisoning" literature describes poisoning by any one organism in particular, that would be A. phalloides. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've taken on board comments and removed experimental material, to leave the essential symptoms/toxicity/treatment. This is now 668 words vs. 1097 words in Amanita phalloides (not including notable victims or Similarity to edible species so as to compare the above only). The article is still over 20kb in size and as comprehensive as I can make it. Do you feel this is enough of a cut-down. If not, which particular bits do you feel are still extraneous? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: FWIW, I envisage a amatoxin poisoning section on the amatoxin page which would be longer than that on A. phalloides, just haven't done that yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) [reply]
Its definite better in this article (still a bit long in the A. phalloides article), so coverage of different topics is now more balanced. I think a "poisoning" section of in Amatoxin could be put together by synthesizing the section in the A. phalloides article with the older, longer section of the A. ocreata article. I'll try putting it together tonight. Peter G Werner (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(fixed).
    • You don't appear to have a consistent method for providing foreign-language and English translations of journal articles. Note 25 has the German title followed by the English translation in single brackets. Note 27 has just the English title in single brackets. Note 29 also has just the English title, but this time in double brackets. All of those have the language in parens at the beginning of the citation, but note 38 has the phrase "in German" in parens after the article title.
(There are only 2 left and both have icons. I removed the german title to streamline with the Italian one so both are formatted the same way) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) [reply]
    • "...it is one of the most poisonous of all known toadstools..." Something can't be "one of the most", it can only be the most.
(There are several highly lethal species which it would be hard to conculsively determine which is the most poisonous. It isn't conclusively known which is the most poisonous. I have reworded to "it is a potentially deadly fungus")
    • "The spore print is white, and the ovate to subelliptic amyloid spores are 9–14 x 7–10 μm viewed under a microscope." This sentence lost me. What does "the ovate to subelliptic amyloid spores" mean?
(changed to "oval-shaped" and linked amyloid. Could explain here I guess or leave as bluelink. I am open to suggestions) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 01:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, I think it should go back to something close to the language you originally used – "ovoid to subellipsoid" is the proper terminology, and in Wikipedia, terms not easily understandable to a general audience are linked rather than "dumbed down". In this case, the link would probably be to Wiktionary rather than Wikipedia. I'd be happy to write these entries in Wiktionary if they're not there already. Peter G Werner (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have reinserted ovate to subelliptic and left oval-shaped in momentarily until a wiktionary bit is wirtten. I am more than happy if you tweak to link at that stage. That'd be great. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) [reply]
    • Some statements, like "It also stimulates DNA-dependent RNA polymerases, leading to an increase in RNA synthesis." seem to be over-cited. Does that statement really need three sources? Is it a point of contention in this particular discourse community?
(I've removed that one. I'll check for others)
(agreed. 2 toadstools removed from article)
  • support, with a few questions:
    • Could you please confirm that this is correct, "first described by American mycologist Charles Horton Peck in 1909" which is referenced to Peck, Charles Horton (1909). "New species of fungi.". A search shows that this may have been written earlier [1]
(Peck seemed periodically published articles with the same title as he described fungi, so it was like a series as far as I can tell. I have a peer reviewed journal article by mycologists Ammirati and Thiers which dates and references the particular instalment where A. ocreata appears as a publication in 1909, but I have found the same title used when other species are described over time. confusing I know....) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 23:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could this be clarified, "It belongs to the section Phalloideae within the genus Amanita, which contains several deadly poisonous fungi including the death cap (A. phalloides) and several all-white species of Amanita also known as "destroying angels": Amanita bisporiga of eastern North America, and the European A. virosa." Specifically, are these examples part of the same section or just the genus? If I am interpreting it correctly, how about: "The mushroom belongs to the same section (Phalloideae) and genus (Amanita) as several deadly poisonous fungi including the death cap (A. phalloides) and several all-white species of Amanita known as "destroying angels": Amanita bisporiga of eastern North America, and the European A. virosa."
(sounds good. done) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 23:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blue is an unfortunate colour for the distribution map when the species is along the coastline like this.
(gah! shoulda thought of that one! left a note with the map maker. I have no experience with these type of maps...) done
    • In "Distribution and habitat", honestly I don't know much about mushrooms (yet) but...is their distrubution limited by their relationship with the specific tree types? Are there other factors (climatic? humidity of west coast?) that are required to grow?
(probably more vegetation than anything else, however all the material I have is descriptive, so I can't speculate if there isn't already speculation published. The old OR issue..)
    • In "Toxicity" is there a measurement of how toxic one mushroom is? an LD50 maybe? Would it be the same as Alpha-amanitin's 0.1 mg/kg?
(The nearest I could get (that wasn't OR) was reporting its relative A phalloides, where half a cap may be lethal, near the section where it says it may be more toxic, as that species has been studied in much greater detail)
That's fine. Original Research on the toxicity isn't a wise idea. --maclean 01:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(we're working on it - see above)

Comment: I'm taking a close look at Image:Amanita_ocreata_map.png, the distribution map, and see some definite problems with it. First, based on descriptions by Tulloss, etc, which only name what states the mushroom occurs in, any map that attempts to show a more exact range than that is bound to fall back on original research. Second, the range of occurrence shown is clearly not accurate. It only shows it as a coastal species, yet its definitely known from the foothills of the Sierra Nevada (the map doesn't quite seem to go that far east, or follow the natural geography of California at all, as best I can tell). Also, it shows the distribution in the PNW to be primarily coastal, which is not the pattern that oak woodlands follow there. If it is possible to make up a distribution map of this kind for Wikipedia, knowing that there's a degree of original research involved, I would use the distribution maps of Oregon/California oak woodland dominant species, as well as western hazel:

Other dominant species of oak fall within at least one of the geographic ranges shown in the above maps. A map incorporating the ranges of all of the above species would be the most likely distribution map for A. ocreata. Peter G Werner (talk) 09:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll ask and see if the maker (or someone else) can tweak it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) [reply]
I'd have them go with a different color scheme as well. As somebody else mentioned, the use of blue on a coastal area might be confusing. Peter G Werner (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and have already done so. The person I have asked may or may not be a little busy off WP so have a 'reserve' to ask if he is too busy. The map has now been changed from blue to green and enlarged as per the other maps. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The map is way better, and I don't want to run the point into the ground, but the map now shows the distribution as going into BC, which has not in fact been reported. That should be changed. I'm thinking a good place to show the northern end of distribution would be at the same place whether the continuous mainland distribution of Quercus garryana ends, in Whatcom County, Washington, just south of the Canadian border, as per this map:
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/volume_2/quercus/garryana.jpg
There's actually a real possibility that this species occurs in BC, of course, but its never been reported as of yet. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OH no, article instability I read that...be interesting if/when someone finds it up there and we can add it. Lemme know if it turns up...I'll let the mapmaker know to 'shrink' the map at the north end a bit. Map has been duly shrunk Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Amanita_ocreata&oldid=803167484"