Talk:Entoloma sinuatum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Entoloma sinuatum has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
	An entry from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on January 24, 2008.
February 14, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

	Biology Portal Entoloma sinuatum is supported by WikiProject Fungi, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Fungi. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of mid-importance within mycology.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

OK, note to self - stands at 93 words on Jan 22, before exapnding for crack at DYK. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Has the compound responsible for toxicity been identified? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe so. I was googling for that with no luck so far. The situation is similar for many fungi. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

The writing in this article is very bad. The summary paragraph is a mish-mash of statements strung in sequence without logical connection or context. (Note that mushrooms do not have symptoms; mushroom poisining has symptoms.) Consider also this sentence: "More recently still, it has been called by its current name of E. sinuatum." This sentence says nothing and is a tautology. Of course it will be called by its current name more recently than any older names. Or consider this setnce which leads off a section: "Appearing as a medium to large mushroom, this bears a cap usually 6-15 cm wide (2½-6 in), occasionally reaching 25 cm (10 in)." The sentence uses "this" as the leading identifier. It needs an antecedent, particularly since it has a participial clause dependent upon it for context.

The article needs a throrough rewrite before it can even be considered for GA status. This does not consider some of the missing information. For example, the mushrrom is found in North America and Europe... OK, but does that include both Mexico and Alaska? Greece and Norway? It seems unlikely that a mushrrom species would be that widely distributed and not occur on other continents. The article needs more precision in the information it provides. The taxonomy section is also hard to follow because of the many names provided in such a short space. This could be helped by a rewrite, and by utilizing the synonyms= feature of the {{Taxobox}} template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get onto it. Hard when no-one else is doing fungi :( cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I work primarily on bryophytes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I feel so sympathetic now! Call me if you need copyediting :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of February 14, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The followiing paragraph from the taxonomy section needs improvement: To complicate matters further, Quélet had proposed a broader genus Rhodophyllus for all agarics with adnate or sinuate gills and angular spores in 1886, countering Kummer's erection of Entoloma to genus level, with the alternate combination of Rhodophyllus sinuatus. There was a split for many decades between mycologists following either author, though later authorities have tended to favour Entoloma.. There is alot of jargon (naming specific kinds of gills without explaining how they differ from any kind of gills, using the term "agarics" whose origin is not obvious to non-biologists).

- I ditched agaric as it is a tricker term now anyway given that some gilled fungi are unrelated etc. - so I left it at gilled fungi and linked the gills to the illustrations.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC) - tried to jig the last bit too a bit. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate?: a fact template has been added where one reference is required. This may be the reference used later on in the text but I feel it needs to be used here as well since you are making a statement about how very much larger than average specimens have been reported.

- no problemo - done.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Million_Moments (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 14, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass, good use of references

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass, covers taxonomy very well compared to most articles

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Future improvements could include the use of more images to illustrate the differences between this species and the ones it is mistaken for. More detail of the effects of poisoning and the treatment could also be added. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Million_Moments (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. thanks for the tips. I was musing on...(drum roll)..... the next step... cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

See, you get there eventually ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 08:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)