Talk:Entoloma sinuatum

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

message: 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  template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'll get onto it. Hard when no-one else is doing fungi :( cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me about it.  I work primarily on bryophytes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I feel so sympathetic now! Call me if you need copyediting :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA

message: 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.</div>— Million_Moments (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. thanks for the tips. I was musing on...(drum roll)..... the next step... cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See, you get there eventually ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: I'm posting here rather than at the FAC since it seems unnecessary to go into details of copyediting there.  I'll post a link at the FAC to this section.
I am unclear about the "Despite" sentence, as I said at the FAC; but I now think I understand everything up to that point.  I am aware I am probably mangling the specialized meaning of some terms such as "describe", but here's how I would rewrite the first few sentences to convey what I now think they mean:
"The fungus now known as Entoloma sinuatum has had a complicated taxonomic history. The French naturalist Jean Baptiste Bulliard named it Agaricus lividus in his 1788 Champignon de la France.  Bulliard did not formally describe it but provided notes that were sufficient to make it clear he was discussing E. sinuatum, although it later became apparent that the illustration accompanying his text actually depicted Pluteus cervinus.  Meanwhile, Christian Persoon independently described E. sinuatum under the name Agaricus sinuatus in 1801.  German mycologist Paul Kummer, following Persoon's name, moved it to Entoloma in 1871, resulting in the current binomal name; and one year later Lucien Quelet, following Bulliard instead, similarly moved the fungus to Entoloma, resulting in the name Entoloma lividum."
I hope this makes it clearer what I'm trying to get at; for the lay reader the paragraph was very dense, and I hope this is a little easier to navigate. Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I made some (perhaps similar) tweaks while you were writing this. However, I see a few problems of my own. The source cited—Redeuilh (1999)—does not actually say Agaricus lividus is Pluteus cervinus, only that it is a species of Pluteus. Also, Redeuilh says that there is unanimous agreement that Bulliard's concept of Agaricus lividus refers to a Pluteus species—which does not rhyme well with any assertion that Bulliard somehow intended to describe Entoloma sinuatum. Ucucha 03:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, similar tweaks; if you compare you'll see I added rather more explanatory bits than you have done, presumably because I know so little about the topic and need more explanation.  Any thoughts on whether my version contains anything further that could be used?  And I assume you'll post a note based on your comments above about Redeuilh at the FAC? Mike Christie (talk – library) 03:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure yet whether all that you say is correct—for example, Bulliard actually says that "Agaricus lividus" tastes well, which doesn't seem very consistent with this species. I'll leave my comments here for now, to avoid duplicating them; I'm sure Cas will address any issues. Ucucha 03:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also asked user:Circeus for input. Ucucha 04:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I just have to redownload the 99 Rediulh Taxon paper and read it again. Back soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Wow! The image could feasibly be E. sinuatum although the largest mushroom in the middle looks funny with a very wavy-marginned cap (?) Still it has pink gills....but there is no text at all related to it :( I can re-read Noordeloos tomorrow if I get a chance to go to the uni library...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the only reason E. sinuatum doesn't go back to Bulliard too is because he wrote the name out in French ^_^;;; I think that image is actually its holo- or lectotype. Anyway, I think the reason why lividum "lost out" at some point was that change in the ICBN when they (originally) devalidated older fungal names. I think I can now write a fairly good, maybe even gripping narrative. I hope I can be excused for getting a bit lyric in places. Circéus (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Aww, lyric is good, remember we're aiming for "brilliant prose" :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, we have a new narrative. Is it any good? Also for some reason "Rhodophyllus lividus" appeared twice in the taxobox synonyms. I cut the one attributer to Singer. Circéus (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the expanded and clear explanation. I have a few comments. The part around "These two classifications coexisted for many decades," should make clearer what the alternative classification is (Entoloma). I presume that the changes to the ICBN mentioned only applied to fungi; if so, that should be mentioned explicitly. Ucucha 03:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done and done. Thanks for pointing those out. Circéus (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph confusing me at FAC 

message: Didier Dufresne, 1999, "La vengeance de l'entolome livide" Sasata (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, it's youth/kid's lit, in a collection noted "funny stories". And a pretty obscure pub at that: the publisher identifier is 6-digits! Circéus (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, well never mind then--I saw it mentioned on the French wiki article. Cheers, Sasata (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  A source to track down sometime 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Entoloma sinuatum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724152641/http://www.entoloma.nl/pdf/Co-David_et_al_entolomataceae.pdf to http://www.entoloma.nl/pdf/Co-David_et_al_entolomataceae.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified