Talk:Caloboletus calopus/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 22:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

First look to follow shortly. J Milburn (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Links to common name and something about scientific description may help clarify the technical way you're using the terms
 * Linked both in the lead. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Why use stipe rather than stem, when you use cap instead of pileus? (You also use "stalk" further down- potentially confusing to someone unfamiliar with the subject.)
 * Using "stem" may cause confusion with the analogous but anatomically different plant structure; cap has no similar homologies. Have replaced instances of "stalk" with stipe. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not keen on interwiki links in the main article. You're also quoting the German name as a word, and so it should be italicised.
 * Done. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether the taxonomy section would be better off in chronological order?
 * had a go - do you think it reads better in chronological order? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Morphology of ruforubraporus? (I'm less concerned about the form...)
 * Added both. Sasata (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "and the cap of B. satanas is a similar colour but this species has red pores". As the subject of the clause is the cap, how about something like "and the cap of B. satanas is a similar colour, but sports red pores"?
 * "B. chrysenteron" Is this an outdated binomial? It's currently a redirect
 * Now in Xerocomellus – fixed. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "It grows on chalky ground from July to December, in Northern Europe,[21] and North America's Pacific Northwest and Michigan,[25] though the latter appears to be a different subspecies if not a separate species." Odd sentence- the latter what?
 * I've removed this, as this statement was not in my more recent edition of this book. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ... now replaced with a more comprehensible, sourced statement. Sasata (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Are any of the chemicals interesting or useful at all? Any potential applications?
 * I added a bit of info (that might be interesting to a chemist); as for potential applications, not really. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Some other bits I picked up on but which I wouldn't push for GAC:
 * Missing page number in the Phillips source (and an ISBN would be good for consistency). Same for Carluccio- no page range. No accessdate for the British Mycological Society source.
 * Fixed Phillips; BMS source doesn't require accessdate as it's a PDF of a text document. Cas has Carluccio page#. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The "Macrofungus resources and their utilization" source is a bit odd. What is it? A book? A journal article?
 * Oops – forgot to add journal name. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Most sources are "Smith, J.", but you have some "Smith, John", some "John Smith" (I think- they're Chinese names) and some "Smith J". Consistency would be nice!
 * Should be better now. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The distribution focuses a lot on precisely where in the US, while just saying "Northern Europe".
 * That's a drawback of having mostly N.American sources ... will keep looking to see if this can be fleshed out before FAC. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * alot of European mushroom books are incredibly vague and often omit even general geographic information on distribution. I might have to visit a library for that and even then might not be able to pinpoint anything. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Images and sources look great. Article's on the shorter side, but seems to cover all the bases- the only thing it may be accused of lacking is any microscopic details beyond the spores, while your mention of B. panniformis does have some. If there aren't the sources, then there aren't the sources; I certainly wouldn't hold back GA status on those grounds. I suspect there is more to be said about the chemistry, too- a Google Scholar search is pulling up a lot of (to my eyes!) dull-looking papers on chemical extracts. I doubt any are super-important, but if you're looking for further expansion, there may well be more out there. A couple of other bits of potential interest:
 * This paper may also have some more similar species.
 * I've added a bit sourced to this paper–thanks. Sasata (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This paper, according to a Google Scholar quote (...reported the isolation and structural elucidation of two highly functionalized sesquiterpenoids from a Korean collection of Boletus calopus. On the basis of mainly NMR evidence, the authors...), mentions in passing that it has been found in Korea.
 * Added distribution in Korea. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hope this is helpful. J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Made a couple of small tweaks- it's looking very strong. I'm guessing that there's probably a little more expansion to be done before FAC (despite the already very long list of references!) based on the very large number of hits on Google Scholar. Regardless, I'm happy to promote. Great work! (Also, I think this is my 200th GA review- an apt topic!) J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * thanks - I think we were feeling a little bit at a plateau with this and your comments gave us an idea of what to do next, so good all round. Cheers, Cas Liber  ( talk  ·  contribs ) 00:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ditto from me – 'twas a helpful review. Sasata (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)