Talk:Imleria badia/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 21:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming this one now. Definitely a species which deserves a decent article. Review to follow shortly. J Milburn (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A link to common name in the lead probably wouldn't go amiss.

linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Often considered a poor relation of the Cep (Boletus edulis), it is nevertheless highly regarded by some authors such as Antonio Carluccio." May be unclear that edibility is being talked about here.

rewritten to clarify it's about eating it Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Viscipellis and Ixocomus by Lucien Quélet in 1886 and 1888,[4] respectively;" Why the comma?

the Quélet ref was slotted after the comma to get it close to the name. I've removed the comma which was there to hold the ref, and I think we need to get one for the first name. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added a ref for Quélet 1886. Sasata (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1931, Edouard-Jean Gilbert reclassified it the genus Xerocomus," Odd phrase

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"(as Xerocomus var. limatulus)" Should be "(as Xerocomus badius var. limatulus)", presumably?

fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do we distinguish the glaber variety? Where's it found?

finding material is insanely elusive, however I just noticed the book that describes it is in my uni library, so will fetch to add most likely on Tuesday. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have the book in front on me ... will add soon. Sasata (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sasata (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Bay Bolete is common in coniferous" Common name? Capitalisation?

lower cased Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The insect point in the description would probably be better suited to the ecology section.

moved Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some slightly pickier points. I'm happy to promote without these being dealt with.

The maggot point in the lead feels a little incongruous

maggot infestation is a really common problem when picking boletes - so the fact that this one is relatively maggot free is quite notable (remember we can't cultivate them so all boletes that are eaten are picked in the wild.....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Singer paragraph is a little difficult to follow
Why mention the French common name?

I thought it was interesting to highlight how broad the association with the word "bay" was. My french mushroom book harps on about it the most.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do the names of the varieties mean?

Added etymolgies for two of them. Based on a net search, I think limatulus means "somewhat polished", but cannot find a reliable source for this. Do you have anything Cas? Sasata (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

got limatulus Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images and sources seem fine. Generally, very strong, and absolutely ready for GA status. A quick question- if this is mycorrhizal, how come it can grow on stumps? J Milburn (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The roots of nearby trees can penetrate the decaying wood of stumps, allowing mycorrhizal fungi to grow there and creating the illusion that they are growing as saprotrophs. Will try to remember where I read this, and add it as a source. Sasata (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the hyphae of a fungi grow throughout the soil and objects in/on the soil. Growing out of a stump or off of a dead log means little without further knowledge. I have found many mycorrhizal species growing in odd places.M.E.Nuhn (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm happy that this is ready for GA status. If you're aiming for FA, and I don't see any reason that this wouldn't be possible, the prose still feels a little choppy in places. I'd recommend either getting an outside editor to have a hack at it or coming back to it in a few months. We're also missing some information on certain varieties-

The distribution/morphology of var. limatulus is missing.
Both MycoBank and Index Fungorum list the following names as legitimate, but they are not mentioned in this article-
- Xerocomus badius f. labyrinthicus
- Xerocomus badius f. vaccinus
- Boletus badius var. calceolus
- Boletus badius var. glutinosus
- Boletus badius var. nummularius

I guess that getting hold of the literature for this may be something of a slog, but I do think they belong in the article if it's going to hit featured status- one possibility would be a table of forms and varieties, listing authors, distributions and distinctive morphology. J Milburn (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks JM, that was a helpful review. I agree about the inclusion of the forms/varieties as important for FA status (and also that it will be a slog...). I have a Italian bolete book that discusses some of this, but will have to feed it through Google translate and see if I can understand what comes out the other end. Sasata (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

agreed/good points. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]