Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Russula emetica/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 Ian Rose 17:19, 3 November 2012 [1].

Russula emetica

Featured article candidates/Russula emetica/archive1

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russula emetica is a very common mushroom of damp woodlands throughout the Northern Hemisphere. It is toxic, but can be made nominally edible with suitable preparation (not sure why anyone would want to though). I've expanded the article recently and think it meets the FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 23:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sasata. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple grammar issues on a quick read-through:

"The active agent has not been identified but thought to be sesquiterpenes..." This portion of the sentence appears to be missing a verb around the "but thought" area. Chris857 (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Same with "...it is said to then be edible, though not recommended"; should this be something like "it is said to then be edible, though consumption is not recommended"? Chris857 (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I fixed these. Sasata (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all images are OK (own work or CC 3.0 on Mushroom Observer).

file:Russula_nana_218407_crop.jpg could use a category (only as info, unrelated to FA).

Done and thanks. Sasata (talk) 08:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Don't italicize editions
FN28: is "London" part of the publication title?
FN36: what is S.I.? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed 'em, thanks. Sasata (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ from Jim More than the usual number of nitpicks this time Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

red-coloured — why not just "red", lose "coloured"
The gills are white to pale cream in colour — just " The gills are white to pale cream ", lose "in colour"
new genus Russula in 1796,[7] where it remains. — maybe neater as its current genus Russula in 1796.
R. betularum, R. nana — overlinked in main text
.It is a bright scarlet or cherry red in colour — just " bright scarlet or cherry red " lose "in colour"
bluish-gray — rest of the article is BE (colour etc)
The active agent has not been identified but is thought to be sesquiterpenes, — sesquiterpenes is plural, "The active agents... are"
many red-coloured species of Russula; — why not just "red", lose "coloured"
Many, such as the bloody brittlegill (R. sanguinaria), are inedible; it can be distinguished from R. emetica by the reddish flush in its stem — "Many... it", changed number
Fruit bodies grow singly, scattered, or in groups in sphagnum moss near bogs, and in coniferous and mixed forests. It occasionally — "fruit bodies... it", changed number
and can be very common — "locally very common"?
to any red-capped white Russula encountered — not sure you need the last word
0.24–0.49 million mushrooms/hectare/year, corresponding to a fresh weight of 265–460 kg/hectare/year —. Much as I hate to say this, you need imperial conversions for consistency
its fruit bodies were most abundant in the 40-year-old forest stand. — not sure what you are saying here. Is there a "the" missing, or are you saying that it is the part of the forest that is this age where this mushroom is commonest?

Good suggestions; I've trimmed and tweaked the prose like so. Sasata (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was quick! Diff very useful, I'll have to do that more often myself in my FACs. No further queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sasata (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support (moral or otherwise as wikiproject Fungi member and person who buffed it for DYK) ~~reading through now.~~ not much to complain about at all really..item below not a deal-breaker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Rolf Singer's infrageneric classification of Russula - interesting....the last two words are somewhat repetitive but can we lose them without introducing ambiguity - not sure on this one....

Thanks for reviewing & support. I simplified the taxonomy statement and reduced the word repetition. Sasata (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ by Maky:

~~"is edible and good" – good in what sense? palatable?~~

I remove "and good" – it's subjective anyway, and "edible" covers what I'm trying to say. Sasata (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Everything else looks good. Very nice. – Maky ^« talk » 01:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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