Talk:Suillus luteus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 19:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review, but only a few minutes right now. I'll offer an initial few comments and then finish up later tonight/tomorrow. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"in a different family as well as genus" and "produces spore-bearing fruit bodies" I don't know if this is meant for easy-of-understanding for the lead, but do these not include redundant information? (You also link "spore" twice.)

I guess I am trying to think of a way to highlight how distant the relation to B. edulis actually is - i.e. different family. However I could just write "distantly related"...? Second "spore" delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does "in subordo Suilli" mean?

I have linked it to Order_(biology)#Hierarchy_of_ranks as it is Latinized suborder, though not sure that at this early point in Linnean taxonomy how exact that meaning is... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Batsch placed both of these species, along with B. bovinus and the now obsolete names Boletus mutabilis and B. canus, in a grouping of similar boletes he called "subordo Suilli"." Subordo translates to suborder, but his usage is not analogous to what the term means today. Sasata (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little thing, but as this is originally a European species, would British dates not be preferable? If you're set on the current format, that's fine!

yeah, I Britishized the dates as I'd already put accessdates in that format anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This species is one of the few members of the genus Suillus that sport such a ring" This doesn't quite work

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"with dimensions of 14–18 μm" I assume that's the width- how about the length

Oops .. now added. Sasata (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In North America, Suillus borealis and S. pseudobrevipes have similar with veils"

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In Ecuador, Pinus radiata plantations were planted extensively around Cotopaxi National Park, and Suillus luteus boletes appear year-round in abundance, with a 1985 field study estimating 3000–6000 mushrooms per hectare—unlike its seasonal nature elsewhere" This doesn't quite work

reworded like this, then? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" In a Finnish study, researchers found that 70–95% of fruit bodies in an intermediate stage of growth were infested with larvae. In contrast, fruit bodies collected from pine plantations were relatively free of larvae." Are these really comparable? Where were the first lot from/what stage of growth were the second lot?

I've reworded this a bit to hopefully stress not the direct comparison between collections from different studies, but that slippery jacks in their native habitats are far more buggy than those in artificial pine plantations. Sasata (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Slippery jacks should be consumed quickly after picking as they do not keep well" A bit how-to

trimmed - was self-explanatory anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" However, some people may find slippery jacks excessively slippery. Gastrointestinal symptoms could be due to high levels of the sugar alcohol arabitol." I assume you forgot to add a reference, here?

I searched for a reference for this statement, unsuccessfully. I have commented out this part, and will remove before a future FAC if it can't be sourced. Sasata (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources all look fine (a long list!)- I'm not going to quibble about formatting errors, but I recommend looking through before moving on to FAC if that's your aim. (Could you take a look at the Edible & Toxic Fungi of Cyprus source, though? Was it published in English?). Images all look good. I'll admit to being a little distracted while I read this, but I'm confident that it's basically GA-ready. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And please double-check my copyedits! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

they look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Cyprus source is in Greek. I sent a message to the IP editor who added it, asking for a page number. Sasata (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

now added. Sasata (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great- I'm more than happy that this is at GA level. If you're looking FAC-wards, another pair of eyes on the prose probably wouldn't hurt (it's a smidge choppy in places, but certainly OK for GA) and you may want to go through the sources with a fine-toothed comb: there's inconsistency on locations, possibly a few DOIs missing where they could be added, some italics where likely not necessary, etc. Again, not something that's a problem at this level, but something to think about. Anyway, great work, as ever. Promoting now. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]