Wikipedia:Peer review/Auricularia auricula-judae/archive1

Auricularia auricula-judae

This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article passed GAC a while ago, and I've always wanted to see it FAC eventually. I think it looks pretty good, but I was wondering whether there is anything that needs to be done before it's ready to be nominated for featured article status.

Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• The beginning of the Taxonomy and naming is a tad listy, which is not surprising given the content. I think any information which breaks up the name, name, name sequence is good. I will think on this more, and it may be there is no solution to this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'd de-quote "at least 12 binominals" - is that supposed to be binomials?
  • Changed. J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• I always thought past tense of "hang" in the death sense was "hanged"..but not sure how strict guideline this is....
  • According to the OED, "In this sense, hanged is now the specific form of the pa. tense and pa. pple.; though hung is used by some, esp. in the south of England." It doesn't specify which is preferable in the case of suicides, which it lists as a separate meaning. In any case, I've changed it. J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• There are a few other quoted bits that I think will flow better if we de-quote. I was musing on doing this myself but felt discussing first was good.

• Some idea of gross amounts consumed/sold/marketed etc. would be good to source and add.

• The first sentence refers to A. auricula-judae as a mushroom, but this is in fact not the case. A. auricula-judae is a fungus that produces a mushroom fruiting body. I know this is splitting hairs and possibly counter-intuitive to many, but the species name refers to the fungus, not just the fruiting body. Once this has been said once at the start of the article, I think it is then appropriate to to use A. auricula-judae to refer directly to the mushroom as the article does. The systematic history is great! --DeliciousT (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Good point. Done. J Milburn (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Some preliminary thoughts; I'll be back later with a lit review. Sasata (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

• common names in lower case
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• the similar species section could be beefed up. Are those really the only two fungi that other texts suggest might be confused with A. a-j? Nothing from other genera looks similar? How does one distinguish A. fuscosuccinea? Shouldn't Auricularia polytricha be mentioned? Paul Stamets mentions that the two species are easily mistaken, and that the humidity during growth greatly affects the presence or degree of fine hairs on the surface.
• there's only images of single fruit bodies, any chance of a habitat/group shot? (maybe this, this, or File:Auricularia auricula-judae (xndr).jpg?
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• I think that all of the citations in "Pharmacology" must comply with WP:Medmos standards, i.e. using predominantly secondary sources and avoiding primaries unless strictly necessary. There shouldn't be any problem citing each of the sentences in that section to a solid secondary source.
• Cultural depictions section is thin … surely there must be more! Might want to add that Richard Flecknoe wrote about it in 1658, see this Any occult connections?
  • That's a great source! I've added the mention by Marlowe, and will certainly look back at that. I'd like to leave the article closing on the poem, I think it's wonderful, but I'll certainly have a good look at that source. J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Added another quote, this one from Thomas Browne, to the naming section. Flecknoe's mention is just of the relationship between Elder and Judas, doesn't actually mention the fungus. J Milburn (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• the url is showing in ref 2 (Linnaeus) became the book title is linked, suggesting unlinking it (it's linked in the article text); also, retrieval dates aren't required for convenience links to print sources
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• inconsistency with sentence case/title case for book and journal article titles
  • Done, I think. I'll be aware of it. J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• ref #10 (Holden)-page #?
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• shoudn't use et al. in a shorthand footnote when there's only two authors
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• journals don't need publishers specified
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• give book publisher location for all or none, not some
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• "pp" needs a fullstop
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• ref #25 - endash for page range; while I'm here, it would be nice to give Cyberliber links to the 3 Mycologia articles
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 13:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
• ref #27 needs full page range
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• subscription required template not required when jstor link is given (I was probably the one who put that there initially…)
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• make sure the spacing between author initials is consistent throughout
  • Think I'm done with that. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• page #'s for ref #36?
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• ref #41 is 22 pages long, so citations should indicate page numbers to ease verification
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• ref #44 - title needs cap
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• ref #47 pp and endash
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
• this article has a few details about spore discharge (see p. 578)
  • Done. J Milburn (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Ucucha:

• You say that the common name "Jew's ear" originated in the 19th century, but then give a quote from the 17th century using that name.
• "According to a 2010 publication, the annual production of Auricularia species worldwide is the fourth highest among all industrially cultivated culinary and medicinal mushrooms, and in China, the estimated output was roughly 1.655 million tonnes (based on 2003 data), most of which are A. polytricha however (which has by and large replaced A. auricula-judae in international trade)."—together, this sounds odd; you say auricula-judae is very common, and then suddenly backpedal into saying most of that is polytricha. So, is this species the fourth most commonly cultivated mushroom?
  • The details are about the genus, not the species. I gather that those cultivating the mushrooms don't much care as to which particular species (Jew's ears or wood ears- note that, in fact, they're sometimes even known by the same common name) they are getting, but that it's A. polytricha which predominates now. The whole paragraph is really about the two species collectively, as the sources don't differentiate all that much. Does this need to be made clearer? J Milburn (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• "Collection of the mushroom for culinary use has also been documented in Nepal, where the mushroom is known as Thalthaley chyau."—there are many languages spoken in Nepal; is this Nepali or some other? In either case, it should be specified.
  • I've removed it- we don't need the name of the species in every language. J Milburn (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
• "on mice artificially implanted with Sarcoma 180 tumours"—what does the number mean? And why is "Sarcoma" capitalized?
• Random rodent fact: an undescribed species of Bunomys feeds almost exclusively on Auricularia sp. (doi:10.1206/635.1). I see there's a number of species in the genus, though, and Sulawesi might not be the likeliest place to find A. auricula-judae.

Ucucha 00:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your thoughts. I will look into these soon. J Milburn (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)