Talk:Suillellus amygdalinus/GA1

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts-
 * "fruit bodies, or mushrooms, are characterized by their thick, red to brown cap" Plural/singular
 * "Although the edibility of the mushroom is not known with certainty, it may be poisonous, and is not recommended for consumption; it may be mistaken for the edible B. erythropus" I think more of a link between the edibility and similar species is needed in this sentence
 * The linking to Boletus puniceus is a little odd- at first, it implies that there should be an article on the name. Perhaps the phrase "different bolete" should link to the other species?
 * "In Latin, amygdaline means relating to or resembling an almond.[7]" Presumably, there's no source that links the name to the word? Nothing in the original source?
 * Unfortunately, no, Thiers doesn't give an indication he picked amygaline as the nomen nudum (he doesn't describe the spores as being that shape, so I dunno), and no other sources I've seen have offered an explanation. Sasata (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "the mushrooms typically changes"
 * "The species has been implicated" Was implicated?
 * "but the authors concluded" Implies the authors of the poisonings, which doesn't make much sense
 * "they are 45–54 by 10–12 µm" They measure, perhaps?
 * Why do you use both "context" and "flesh"? Are you meaning "context" to apply microscopically, and "flesh" macroscopically? (Also, I may be wrong, but is it not "contex"?)
 * Just sloppiness; I've changed all to flesh to keep it simple. It's definitely context. Sasata (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that B. eastwoodiae redirects to Boletus pulcherrimus (another of your GAs)
 * This redirect will be made into a new article shortly. Sasata (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sasata (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "B. luridiformis is similar in appearance to B. amygdalinus, but has a dark brown to nearly blackish-brown cap, a yellow stem that is densely coated with red pruina (dots), and grows under both broadleaf trees and conifers." Odd sentence
 * "madrone tree is it associated with" mandrone trees with which it associates?
 * Can we have the Chinese title in "Tai FL. (1979). "[Sylloge Fungorum Sinicorum]" (in Chinese). 中国真菌总汇. Beijing, China: Science Press, Academica Sinica. p. 815."?
 * This reference has been removed: MycoBank is incorrect in listing Xerocomus puniceus (W.F. Chiu) F.L. Tai as an obligate synonym (I should have picked up on this earlier). Sasata (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Send them an email? J Milburn (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Is the California Fungi site definitely good? Are the authors noted mycologists?
 * I'd say it's borderline for FA, but good enough for GA. It's definitely a well-respected sources of information about California mushrooms (which this is); I think the citations are uncontroversial. The authors are (I believe) "amateur" mycologists, but at least one has |considerable experience. Sasata (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The images all look fine, but I'm not convinced that the current lead image is the most striking one.
 * Have moved some around and swapped on out, what do you think? Sasata (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Boletus erythropus redirects to Boletus luridiformis. Also, why is the link not mentioned outside of the lead?

The writing's a tad choppy in places, but this isn't FAC! I can't see any other issues, but I'll give it another look through once you've made the above fixes. J Milburn (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review JM, I'll have these fixed up by tomorrow. I'm in the process of updating/expanding/creating red-pored/bluing bolete pages (see discussion at talk:Boletus pulcherrimus); this is the first victim. Sasata (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok I've responded to your points above, or have used your suggestions where there is no response. Tried to smooth out the choppiness too. How's it looking now? Sasata (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Much better; I far prefer the new images. The lead one isn't far from being FPC-worthy. I don't envy you working on these kind of taxonomy-nightmare mushrooms, and I think this article's at the standard I would hope for GA. There are a couple of things which wouldn't be so great at FAC (the dictionary ref is a bit OR-y, the California Fungi site isn't ideal), but I'm happy to promote at this stage. Good work! J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)