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 GrahamColm 09:14, 14 October 2012 [1].

---

Lycoperdon perlatum[edit]

Lycoperdon perlatum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Lycoperdon perlatum/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lycoperdon perlatum is a widely distributed edible puffball mushroom. I think the article meets (or is close to meeting) the FAC requirements. Sasata (talk) 19:03, 21 September 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, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images check out. I'll try to give it a proper read through soon. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Another fine mushroom article, but you would be disappointed if there were no nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• commonly known as the common puffball, warted puffball, gem-studded puffball or devil's snuff-box, is a species of puffball mushroom in the family Agaricaceae. A common species with a cosmopolitan distribution, — too many "common"?
• moderate-sized — I'd prefer "medium-sized" or "moderately sized", reads a little oddly
• When mature it becomes brown and a hole in the top opens to release spores in a burst when the body is compressed by touch or falling raindrops. — can't help feeling there should be a comma somewhere
• Christian Hendrik Persoon — the linked article gives no indication that his name can be spelt with a single "a"
• exoperidium — exoperidium looks better
• spore, gleba, Amanita — have multiple links in the body of the text (excluding lead)
• Hypha — needs link
• The fruit bodies can be eaten by slicing — "after slicing"?

• Thank-you for the nitpicks Jim, I've fixed all of these. Sasata (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No further queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts-

• "The gleba contains minute chambers that are lined with hymenium (the fertile, spore-bearing tissue)" - We can have "the hymenium", but can "hymenium" also be used as an uncountable noun to refer to the tissue that makes up the hymenium?

• Yes, it can be used either way (also adjectivally, as in "hymenial tissue"). Sasata (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "high-speed Schlieren photography" Is that capital needed?

• Nope, I was misled by the unnecessary capitalization in the source. Sasata (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "For this reason puffballs collected for the table should always be sliced vertically and inspected for the internal developing structures of a mushroom." A little bit how-to. We shouldn't be advising readers, just reporting the advice experts have given.

• Done. Sasata (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it similar in appearance to L. marginatum? Does a note about this belong in the similar species section?

• Missed this; now mentioned. Sasata (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Asia (China,[34] Himalayas,[35] Japan)" And southern India, according to the preceding paragraph

• Added. Sasata (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Salmonella typhimurium is a redirect. You may be using an outdated name- perhaps worth checking.

• Hmmm, looks like there's been some name-changing since I took microbiology in Uni. Now updated. Sasata (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Stamps of Romania and Paraguay are public domain, according to the Commons policy page, if you fancy using them. The Romanian stamp can be seen on the right here, and the template is this one. (This may be something to remember for other mushroom articles looking for interesting illustrations- see the website).

• I've maxed out picture space for this article, but have bookmarked the site for future reference (it's sometimes difficult to find free pics of tropical gasteroid fungi). Sasata (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this is helpful. J Milburn (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally a great article.

• Thanks for reading!. Sasata (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support provided a source check comes back OK. Seeems complete and well written. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Maky:

• In the lead, if "common puffball" is a fairly common name, I would suggest moving it to the front of the list.

• Done. I switched "commonly known as" to "popularly known as" to avoid the word repetition. Sasata (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref #4 doesn't go to page 147 from what I can tell. I also searched the source for the cited material and couldn't find any mention of L. gemmatum.

• It refers to the original page numbering, on the upper right and left hand corners of the pages, not the new pagination resulting from PDF conversion (it's page 83 in this form). Sasata (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Some authorities consider Lycoperdon gemmatum..." – This may be a case of WP:WEASEL, but since the ref is off (per the previous point), I can't verify it.

• I reworked the synonymy section to make it less wishy washy/weaselly. The synonymy is now clearly cited to Index Fungorum and MycoBank. Sasata (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "...in his 1821 A Natural Arrangement of British Plants." – Sounds awkward to me. Maybe qualify it by saying "1821 book" or "1821 publication", or slightly restructure it.

• Done. Sasata (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The nutritional value table is a little confusing with its source. It has a reference to a paper, but the table says it comes from the USDA Nutrient Database. (I just realized that it also links to an external website in the body of the article... which might be difficult to work around if this is a template.)

• There's not much I can do about this, it's built into the template. The USDA isn't the actual source (this is given in cite #20), but the percentages given in the table are relative to USDA recommendations for daily nutrient intake. Sasata (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, a very good article as always. Beautiful captions on the images! I may have to remember to point people to this article as an example. I'm looking forward to adding my support. – Maky ^« talk » 23:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks kindly for taking the time to read and comment. Sasata (talk) 05:10, 12 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.