Talk:Tylopilus felleus/GA1

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 11:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything on first pass that seems to require further action. It's well written, well sourced, and appears comprehensive. As a bonus, the quotation about the mushroom "depressing" mushroom hunters is quite funny. I did make a few tweaks for grammar and linking; please doublecheck that I haven't inadvertently introduced any errors.

I also italicized Index Fungorum, which appears to be the common approach on articles found through Google Scholar (,, , , etc.). The template at the bottom remains unitalicized, but I left a note at the template page asking about this issue. (The Index Fungorum article itself was half-and-half between the two approaches.) I don't consider this to be important for Good Article status, however; this is simply me being OCD. Will start the checklist after I've grabbed some coffee. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Checklist
The Healing-mushrooms.net link provides links to peer-reviewed medical studies done with T. felleus. What do you think--are any of these worth including here? -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The very last article looks interesting, and there are a cluster on the same topic - it hasn't made much of an impact but i had seen it obliquely written about. I am guessing it didn't progress as it hasn't been referenced much since - will look into it. Nice find. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds to me like we don't need to worry about it as a "main aspect", then. I'll take a last glance and presumably pass this later on this afternoon. Thanks for the quick response! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, I added a bit from the last article, which is good - essentially these researchers isolated a β-glucan which they called tylopilan and investigated for antitumor activity in the late 1970s. Nothing much has come from it since, and I recall a mention in a guidebook which I will chase. Thiking of the most accurate way of adding this info . I'll run it by too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of sentences about other research studies cited to a secondary source. Am planning to add more details (and probably a couple additional studies) for FAC, but I don't have immediate access to the Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae article that discusses anti-tumor activity. Thanks for the review, Khazar2! Sasata (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! I swapped out "distinctness" for "distinction" in the new text, which appears to me more correct, but revert me if this is field-specific jargon or if I'm just plain wrong. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, judging by this page's summary, the antiinflammatory testing yielded indifferent results, and doesn't appear to have been followed up upon, so I don't feel unhappy if we don't get the fulltext of that one. The others predate the 1994 study included by the same author...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)