Jump to content

Talk:Chalciporus piperatus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleChalciporus piperatus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 24, 2016.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 13, 2013Good article nomineeListed
November 9, 2013Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 17, 2013.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the peppery bolete has been used as a peppery condiment in some countries?
Current status: Featured article

Misplaced epithet

[edit]

"Edible but very peppery, Antonio Carluccio recommends ..."

I found that amusing enough that I have not corrected it. Maproom (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Chalciporus piperatus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 19:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong, love the pictures.

  • The major issue is that you at some points consider "Boletus hypochryseus" a separate species, and at some points list it as a subspecies. The same with "Chalciporus amarellus". If there's controversy, obviously, say so, but currently the article reads oddly for it. If they are varieties, then a mention of morphological characteristics and distributions would be helpful.
  • Ok, I've treated both as varieties following the lead of Index Fungorum, who seem to be following the opinion of Klofac 2006. I've mentioned the differing opinions in the taxonomy section, as well as morphological characteristics and distributions in the appropriate sections. Sasata (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "piperatus is derived from the Latin word piperatus" It's not really derived from, it's the same as. How about "French mycologist Pierre Bulliard described the species as Boletus piperatus in 1790.[2] The specific name, piperatus, means "peppery" in Latin." (This also cuts down on repetition.)
yup/neater/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and there is yellow mycelium at the base" There are yellow mycelia, surely?
hmmm, I always think of it as a group/collective noun...and it seems to be used as such. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few thoughts being picky:

  • "on another fungus" What, just one? Even if it's only one other species, I think "fungi" would be best.
  • "offshoot" Jargon
  • "was made a variety of C. piperatus in 1974" I don't like "made"- if you don't want to repeat "reclassified", you could try something like "described as", "demoted to", "recognised as" or "consigned as"? I particularly like "described as", as this avoids taking a position on the (you suggest) contentious question as to whether it is a species in its own right.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "arrangement where the outermost hyphae" How about "arrangement in which the outermost hyphae"?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "native Myrtle beech" Why caps? Is it named after a person called Myrtle?
hangover from all-title-case days. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pp. 106–07" and "p. 451:2" catch my eye.
err, what's wrong with the first one..? The second is fig. II on plate 451 - I think I will tweak the ref. used "at" parameter. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not 106-7? J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, if I was really being picky-

  • "Described by Pierre Bulliard in 1790 as Boletus piperatus, it is only distantly related to other members of the genus" Someone not familiar with binomials may reasonably ask "What genus?"
ok, added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The genus Chalciporus was an early offshoot from other boletes in the family" Evolutionarily early or taxonomically early?
evolutionarily...I thought that was implied - you reckon slipping in "evolutionarily" as an adverb is helpful? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're right, it's probably obvious. There may be a better way of putting this, but I can't quite see it. J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got two very short paragraphs- try to lose them if you're looking at FAC.
  • "Rubinoboletus rubinus" You mention where the other similar species are found, but not this one.
  • Again for FAC purposes- could you perhaps explain precisely how mycoparasites live?
  • The chemistry section is currently a little opaque.

Sources look fine. The variety/separate species thing is the only real issue; other than that, it's a great little article. J Milburn (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've dealt with the actual issues; the rest I'll leave hanging as pointers if you're considering FAC. (As an aside, and I'm guessing you're just having to follow the sources here, but it's surely unlikely that the variety is mycorrhizal if the species as a whole isn't.) Great work, as ever! J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coding in the article

[edit]

When I read this article, I notice coding in the taxonomy box that is visible on the page (CTRL + F colspan=2 style="text-align: center; background-color: transparent; text-align:center; border: 1px solid red;" |). I cannot detect this fragment in the page's content, nor have I found it in Template:Taxobox, which the coding fragment was in in the article. I am unsure how to fix this, so I am merely pointing this out. --Thenewguy34 (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chalciporus piperatus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chalciporus_piperatus&oldid=1206608890"