Talk:Suillus sibiricus/GA1

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice job! Just a couple of things:
 * Thanks for reviewing! Sasata (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In Tax and phylo., paragraph "Singer described the subspecies S. sibiricus subsp. helveticus in 1951. S. sibiricus is classified in the subsection Latiporini of section Suillus in the genus Suillus. Characteristics of species in subsection Latiporini include cinnamon-coloured spore prints without an olive tinge, and wide pores on the underside of the cap (wider than 1 mm when mature). Other species in the subsection include S. flavidus, S. umbonatus, S. punctatipes, and S. americanus."
 * What features delineate S. sibiricus subsp. helveticus?
 * Good question. It's proving difficult to find this out from the sources I have available. I was able to add a bit about Watling later writing that he thinks it's a nomen nudum, and that the type of this subspecies was collected from Switzerland (Latin Helveticus means Switzerland), but Singer doesn't mention the subspecies in the 4th edition of Agaricales in Modern Taxonomy, so I will have to get the first edition from the library to answer this definitively. Sasata (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * At the library now; here's all Rolf's 1st edition says about our subspecies: "S. sibiricus (Sing.) Sing. (Ixocomus, Sing.), with ssp. heleveticus Sing. (Ixocomus sibiricus sensu Favre non Sing.). There ya go, all your questions answered ;) Sasata (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, answered nicely! Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In sentence "S. sibiricus is classified in the subsection Latiporini of section Suillus in the genus Suillus." Is the taxonomic heirachy the same when a species is in a generic subsection? I thought I knew this ( *blushes* ). Maybe reads slightly 'off-layperson' ;-)
 * Genus->subgenus->section->subsection. That's about all I know! Singer didn't use subgenus in this case; I'm guessing because he didn't feel the morphological differences between related Suillus species groups warranted distinction at the subgeneric level. Or not; these are classifications made without the benefit of molecular analysis, so they may be shown to be incorrect in the future. Anyway, I added a few words to mention what characterizes the section, let me know if you think it still needs some clarification. Sasata (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Much better :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, paragraph "A phylogenetic analysis of various eastern Asian and eastern North American disjunct Suillus species revealed that S. sibiricus forms a well-supported clade with S. americanus and S. umbonatus; these relationships are corroborated by a previous analysis (1996), which used a larger sampling of Suillus species to determine taxonomic relationships in the genus. Within this clade, S. umbonatus and U.S. S. sibiricus can be separated from the rest of the group. However, the phylogenetic relationships among the subgroups determined from different methods of analysis are not always consistent and could not be established with confidence. In general, there is little phylogenetic divergence detected in this group."
 * Probably my lack, but sentence "However, the phylogenetic relationships among the subgroups determined from different methods of analysis are not always consistent and could not be established with confidence." feels out of context. Where were the subgroups defined in the paragraph? Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Poor wording on my part. I changed "subgroups" above to "tested isolates", and "group" to "clade" in the next sentence. Is that better? Sasata (talk)
 * Good fix! We've another pass :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 04:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Results of review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Suillus sibiricus passes this review, and has been upgraded to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: