Template:Did you know nominations/Amanita excelsa

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Thine Antique Pen 18:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Withdrawn, will be going over entire thing after the Olympic period. Thine Antique Pen 18:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Amanita excelsa

(

)

... that the edibility of Amanita excelsa (pictured) is unknown, despite it being classed as poisonous in 1993 and edible in 2004?

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Minitram

Created/expanded by Thine Antique Pen (talk). Self nom at 12:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks OK, offline hook accepted in good faith. Are you sure you didn't translate it though as either you have the books or its strange you didn't add links to the sources online! QPQ needed....♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your review! I linked the QPQ: Template:Did you know nominations/Minitram. This one isn't a translation. :D ⇒T A P 13:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Page numbers missing for five of the eight books (#s 2, 3, 4, 7, 8) Seems odd. Anne (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Page numbers are not required per the DYK criteria, but Done anyway. Thine Antique Pen 16:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Page numbers added. Anne (talk) 17:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Pulled out of prep due to concerns expressed by Sasata. --Orlady (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

My concerns:

Some of the cited article text did not accurately represent what the sources were saying. I've fixed some of this to the best of ability with the sources I have available, but am worried about the offline sources.
Two of the page numbers given for sources I have at hand were incorrect (they've since been corrected). Also, one source "Fascinated by Fungi" by O'Reilly (2011), contains 443 pages, but the cited page number is p. 530. Were these numbers made up to satisfy the reviewer who asked for page numbers??
I have my doubts about the current source #6 "A Guide to Agaricomycetes Fungi", as no author, publisher, location, or isbn is given, and I haven't been able to find any other confirmation of the existence of this source.
Roger Phillips (2006) is used as one of the main sources for this article, but, having located that source, it is clearly indicated that it's discussing the variety Amanita excelsa var. spissa, not the nominate variety discussed in the article, so this source should not be used. Also disconcerting is that this source is not even cited correctly; for example, Phillips gives the cap diameter as 6–10 cm, while the article, citing Phillips, gives 8–15 cm.
The hook is incorrect; it is based on a misinterpretation Boa (2004), who did not in fact describe the mushroom as edible, but rather, indicated that the source from which he obtained the opinion of edibility was uncertain. Sasata (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)