Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Suillus spraguei/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 00:04, 6 January 2011.

Suillus spraguei

 * Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Suillus spraguei is an attractive, edible mushroom of eastern North America and eastern Asia. It became a GA over a year ago and I recently decided to revisit and see what I could do to help it "go all the way". I think it's comparable in quality to the other mushroom FAs; compare Suillus brevipes for an example in the same genus. My typing hands await your suggestions and comments. Sasata (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * All images verifiably in the public domain, and I would love to see File:Suillus_spraguei_24365.jpg as a featured Image Fasach Nua (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it does not meet FP criteria 2.  wacky wace  12:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You have to handle a complex set of dates, but it seems that "a formal scientific description was not published until 1872 when American mycologist Charles Horton Peck named the species Boletus pictus." is incorrect, since Peck's name was published in 1873.
 * Now corrected. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't the current text also wrong, because a proper description (that of Boletus spraguei) was published in 1872? Ucucha 08:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I get what you're saying (it's late here...) Have reorganized this part a bit. Sasata (talk) 08:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If it was transferred to Suillus in 1898, why is Suillus pictus dated to 1964 in the taxobox?
 * Good catch. I was using information from two sources (MycoBank vs. Palm and Stewart, 1986) with conflicting information on the original publication date for this name. Although I usually use MycoBank or Fungorum for synonymy data, in this case I think they got it wrong, and so have used synonymy as given by P&S, but have noted the other positions in a footnote. I'll contact MycoBank and let them know as well so they can update their database. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is pretty obvious, but perhaps clarify that spraguei refers to Sprague?
 * I thought it was clear already, but I've now explicitly mentioned Sprague. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't there a special term for a disjunct eastern Asian – eastern North American distribution?
 * I checked out several recent papers that discuss this intercontinental disjunct pattern (not just relating to fungi) but didn't see evidence of a specific term for it. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 19:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "In North America, its range extends from eastern Canada (Nova Scotia),[16] south to Mexico (Coahuila and Durango).[29] In the United States, the distribution extends west to Minnesota.[15]"—I think Minnesota extends further north than Nova Scotia. Are there no further details on range? Does it occur in Florida? Where is the western limit between Minnesota and Coahuila?
 * I rechecked my sources, but was unable to come up with much more than what was there already. I did manage to clarify a bit about its range in the US... better? Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments Ucucha, I will work on these tonight. Sasata (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sources: should be used; says spraguei is paraphyletic with respect to decipiens. Web of Science list two other sources that are not used in the article, but that seem less interesting (old molecular studies). Ucucha 10:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I added your suggested Mueller 2001 as a supplementary ref, but it's mostly the same info as the biogeography paper published the year before by the essentially the same authors (Wu 2000) that focussed more specifically on Suillus. Sasata (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Resolved comments from me.
 * J Milburn (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)}}

Comments from J Milburn-
 * "and is synonymous with" is an odd phrase- it's the name that's synonymous with it, not the mushroom itself.
 * Rewrote this to emphasize instead that S. pictus is another name that is still commonly used. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "although opinions about to its quality vary." Rephrase?
 * Removed "to". Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "the species name" apostrophe
 * Changed to specific epithet. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "be a new species they named Boletus murraii" which?
 * Reworded. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "although this was later considered to be merely a younger version of their Boletus spraguei" by whom?
 * Rolf Singer, added. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "The specific epithet pictus means "painted" or "colored"." Perhaps mention that where you talk about the name pictus? If you want that paragraph to be longer, perhaps move the mention of what spraguei refers to to there?
 * I moved the spraguei etymology from the taxonomy paragraph to this paragraph, to keep the "naming" bundled together. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "The stem is 4 to 12 cm (1.6 to 4.7 in) long, and 1 to 2.5 cm (0.4 to 1.0 in) thick, roughly cylindrical in shape, or sometimes with the bulbous bottom so as to be somewhat club-shaped.[16][15]" a bulbous bottom? Also, reorder refs
 * Done. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "grayish ground color" What does that term mean?
 * Removed (redudant with "underlaid", which I added earlier). Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "injured.[16][12]" reorder
 * Ok. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "unsymmetrical" asymmetrical?
 * The former is okay too, but yeah the latter is probably more common... changed Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Support. Great as usual, I've no doubt you'll deal with my small concerns Dealt with. Researching that taxonomic history and rendering it comprehensible is an impressive feat by itself. J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources comment: All sources look OK, verification spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support and comments No real concerns, some nitpicks  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  08:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The ring is white in the lead and grey in the description.
 * tested with chemical tests &mdash; repeat of tested/tests
 * ammonium hydroxide &mdash; personally I'd prefer ammonia solution, because that's more accurate, but not a big deal
 * more brownish &mdash; "browner"?
 * Thanks Jim, I changed all but the last; I think there's a subtle distinction between browner and more brownish (my wife assures me it's true!) and didn't want to deviate from the intent of the source. Sasata (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'm assured that wives are WP:RS &mdash; by my wife!  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. -- Pres N  22:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Support made a couple of minor tweaks prosewise and nothing prosewise or comprehensivenesswise is left to obstruct a thumbs up from me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.