Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amanita ocreata/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 not promoted 00:51, 7 December 2007.

Amanita ocreata[edit]

≈≈ warning:deadly fungus alert in California ≈≈...I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it fulfils FA criteria. It is thoroughly referenced, is comprehensive, has images with appropriate licencing, and has prose at least as good as other successful Featured Article Candidates I've worked on. Let me know how I can improve this one cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is jumping the gun a bit. The first step would be to see if the article meets the criteria for WP:GA status and bring it up to that if not, then see about bringing it up to Featured Article status. Also, I could be wrong, but since this is a relatively short article on a specific topic, I'm not sure if it qualifies to be a featured article. (The latter is the reason I've never tried putting Myco-heterotrophy or Galerina forward as FA candidates.) Also, I think that quite a bit of the toxicity info really belongs in another article, since this information on amanitin and phalloidin poisoning is not at all specific to this species. Peter G Werner 16:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This brings up the idea of 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.

As far as GA/FA, I have often bypassed one stage successfully - it is not seen as a two stage process. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. GA is not a condition for FA. Regards, Separa 22:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA is not part of the FA process and is not necessary for FA status or candidacy; also, short articles are FA-eligible if they are comprehensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WRT Featured Article length, Amanita ocreata is 23 kb, Make Way for Ducklings is 17 kb, Hurricane Irene (2005) is 8 kb. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also a shorter article means it is more convenient to have all the relevant information on one page (namely this one). For reasons good or bad, the species unit is the standard 'currency' of almost all biological books for laypeople, whether they be birdwatching, mushroom picking, wildflower collecting or whatever, and that is what has developed here on WP - it is now big enough that we can do it. If you feel there is anything on the page that doesn't apply to this species I can remove it but I'd propose the lethality and treatment are pretty important and most accessible where they are. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to see a distribution map. It may take care of the rather stubby-looking "distribution" section. 82.71.48.158 (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - I'll see what I can do.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 2nd thoughts this may be a little tricky due to mushrooms being less visible than plants or animals but i promise I am looking into it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I note that the lead has no citations - including for it's deadliness- which is then disproven in the body?--Keerllston 00:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I am not sure where you get the idea it is disproven in the text as I hadn't consciously written anything along those lines in the body. In essence, it appears to be of similar or possibly even more toxicity than the much more widespread and accidentally eaten death cap Amanita phalloides which has a mortality of around 10-15% even with hospital intervention as described. Both are actually pretty dangerous fungi if you eat them. In regards to refs in leads, there are several points of view, with many FAs having none as the lead summarises the body and some writers proposing that inline reffing in the body is sufficient. The other extreme is reffing everything in the lead which I think could look rather messy. OTOH MOS does suggest that reffing controversial points maybe a happy compromise. In which case I am happy to place 2 refs in the 2nd para - one for toxicity and one for amanitins. Let me know if this is sufficient or whether tehre are other bits likely to be challenged you'd like reffed. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.