Talk:Suillus bovinus

Bookmark - here, [Modification of the host-fungus interface in mycorrhizas synthesized between Suillus bovinus (Fr.) O. Kuntze and Pinus sylvestris L. – New Phytologist, 96: 583–588. here] Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Suillus bovinus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 10:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:27, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• "One origin for the name is that medieval knights—who revered Tricholoma equestre—relegated this mushroom to the cattle-drovers' plant as it was not highly valued." Surely that's one proposed origin, rather than one of many origins. I'm also unclear what "relegated this mushroom to the cattle-drovers' plant" means (but this sounds like a nice fact to include!)

Added "proposed"...to me "cattle-drovers" clearly implies second class citizen who get the less prized mushrooms..? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

How about something like "...knights considered this mushroom fit only for cattle-drovers", or introducing a direct quote - "...knights considered [or relegated, if you prefer it] this mushroom [to] "the cattle-drovers' plant"..."?

Ok - that'll do me (PS: Dunno where the "plant" came from...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• "A limited genetic sampling of species in a 1996 study by Annette Kretzer and colleagues showed it had" It isn't clear what the "it" is in this context. That whole paragraph is a little unclear

Okay I tried this - the point of the second bit is that with genetic sampling of populations, some species, like Suillus granulatus have turned out to represent 2 or 3 species, despite looking similar. Do you think that is worth putting in? Or are we getting too off-topic? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• "Arthur Anselm Pearson defined the variety Boletus bovinus var. viridocaerulescens," Is "defined" the right word, here?

Well, technically "defined" is as valid as "described", though I generally reserve it more for genera where a scientist is generally proposing a set of parameters to define what lies and doesn't lie within a particular subgenus/genus/family/order etc. Changed to to "described" as it was a subspecies Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• "Index Fungorum does not, however, consider the variety to have independent taxonomic significance." Just a little thing, but that strikes me as undue personification

Torn on this one - I think it is good/educational to link/mention Index Fungorum, but will think on a reword. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it belongs- it's just the wording that I'm bothered by- it's by no means a big deal! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Tricky - I tried this but anything with IF as the subject will require some verb that seems to give IF some consciousness... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:55, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• "generally called a mushroom by laypeople" How about "colloquially [or commonly] known as mushrooms"?

Changed to "colloquially" though I wonder whether that word is too strong... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• "The mycelium has a pink tinge" I think I may have raised this before, and I may be wrong, but to me, "mycelium" is a single cell. If I'm right, you mean "The mycelia have a pink tinge".

I've always used mycelium as a collective noun, like here. The individual bits are "hyphae" ec. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• On the ecology section; I think the first paragraph could be smoothed out a little (but that's for pre-FAC rather than now) and I think you could be a bit clearer in the text that this is a mycorrhizal species

Added some context and tried smoothing it a bit to make it less ambiguous... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm struggling a bit with the formatting of the Watling citation. Sousa et. al could also do with a double-check.

The Watling ref has some parameters we don't normally use so looks funny, and the other I did find a doi and pmid to add Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

You're using {{cite journal}} for Watling- should it not be {{cite book}}? Josh Milburn (talk) 11:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

(facepalm) fixed now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• On your Motiejūnaitė source, I think you should have the original title and then the translated titles in square brackets, not the other way around. I may be wrong.

Aha, we have a parameter for that it turns out...and you were right. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Your Leonard and Batchelor source (as well as your Leonard source) could perhaps be formatted a little better. I'm sure they are, but to double-check- we're sure of reliability?

Fungimap is about as official as one can get - the handful of Aussie mycologists are all involved in it and it has gov't funding..so yeah, is kosher Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• There's no location on your Jordan citation.

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• Could we have some kind of category for its North American distribution? I also wonder if we should be thinking about a subcategory of Category:Introduced species.

added cat...now to populate it.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

That's about all I can see. The sourcing and pictures are great (I love the lead!) and the writing's very strong. All the bases are covered. To be honest, I think I could promote this now- what I've said is very nit-picky, but I'll give you a chance to respond anyway. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

No further comments. Happy to promote at this time. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)