Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Suillus salmonicolor/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:51, 19 March 2011 [1].

Suillus salmonicolor

Featured article candidates/Suillus salmonicolor/archive1

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The slippery Jill is an widely distributed, slimy, and (somewhat) edible mushroom. I have exhausted my sources both scholarly and popular, and think the article is similar in quality to the two other Suillus FAs. Looking forward to your feedback. Sasata (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - No dabs or dead external links. ~~Since it's in the toolbox, are we required to use alt text now? If so, several images need it. If not, never mind. Otherwise, I will offer a full review shortly.~~ – VisionHolder « talk » 15:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text is not currently a FA requirement. Brianboulton (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments:~~ The article looks good at a glance. Here are a couple of things to chew on while I slowly make my way through the meat of the article.

In the {{mycomorphbox}} template, the smiley face doesn't imply food safety to me. I feel that File:Food Safety 1.svg might be a better icon. Alternatively, I might be able to create something from File:Clipart plate.svg and a few other clipart items on Commons, if you want. Your thoughts?

This is more of a template issue. There's a suite of face icons that correspond with edibility (smily for edible, green sickly for poisonous, etc.) and all of them would have to be changed to make them consistent. I think there fine as is (but I guess I'm used to them now). Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just though I'd bring it up. But you're right—it's a template thing. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a lot of links in the references. Are all of the links fairly stable? Would any of them benefit from being archived on something like WebCite?

I think most are quite stable (Biodiversity library, Cyberliber, Mushroom Expert, Index Fungorum) except for the Google links. I've been meaning to figure out how that WebCite thing works, so perhaps I'll use it on a couple of the outliers. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"mycorrhizal" is linked in the lead, but can it be briefly explained? The body text summarizes it nicely and quickly.~~

Done. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~The very last paragraph, "has also been" repeats 3 times in close proximity.~~

Good eye; reworded some. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'll be adding more as I go along. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Support: That's it! The article is excellent. Good job! – VisionHolder « talk » 16:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look! Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking nice at first glance!

"by Charles C. Frost" Who? "American mycologist" or something?

Added American mycologist as suggested. I'm working on an article for him, but it'll be a multi-hook for DYK so it's taking a while. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"publication, Mycologist Roy Halling" caps (and perhaps more as above?)

Fixed cap. I'll bluelink him soon. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The online mycological taxonomy database MycoBank considers them to be synonymous,[7] contrary to the opinion of Index Fungorum.[14]" A small point, but they can't really consider anything. Perhaps say they list it as such? Websites can't have opinions.

Didn't think of it like that; not sure I completely agree with the semantics (if you look a several definitions for "opinion", some of them are worded such that it could be correct to say that a book or a website expresses an opinion), but nevertheless, I have reworded. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Bessette and colleagues" Who? Full name?

Added first name and redlinked. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"propose to remove" Propose removal of?

Reworded. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"According to one source" A bit weasel wordy? Name the source?

Weasel removed, source named. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Similarly, David Arora in his Mushrooms Demystified, opines that it is not worth eating." Odd commas

Also reworded. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason you haven't placed similar species as a subsection of description?

Not really; now subsectioned. Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read it all as closely as it warrants, but it is looking great. J Milburn (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! Sasata (talk) 15:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of other thoughts-

Pileipellis could do with a link, and the article could do with updating with the details of a ixotrichodermium (which is a wonderful word :) )

Added a link in the description section, and mentioned the ixo in the cap cuticle article. Sasata (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"especially the cheilocystidia on the gill edge" A little redundant, though I see what you were trying to do

Redundancy gone. Sasata (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "caulohymenium"?

I took it out, it specialized jargon. Basically, some boletes have fertile regions on the upper portions of their stems where caulocystidia and caulobasidia may be found, and these are often morphologically different than the usual ones location in the regular hymenium. Sasata (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to name the authors as well as the books in the edibility section where possible. I also rephrased it slightly, I hope you don't mind.

I'd rather not add more names unless they already have Wikipedia articles (hence the D. Arora name drop); interested parties can check the citation to see who gave the opinion. Sasata (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Other than those little points, I am happy to support. J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again JM. Sasata (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Be consistent in how page ranges are notated - for example, you use "100-5" but "586–89"
Ref 15: two issues - first, thus far no Bessette bibliographic information has been provided (it appears later); second, it's not clear which Bessette et al. is being referred to here
What does CAB stand for?
Be consistent in whether state names are abbreviated or not
Ref 22: again, no full bibliographic information until late
Indicate foreign-language sources (ex. ref 29)
Page number(s) for ref 29?

Images are all CC-BY-SA, captions are fine, no issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough nitpicking, Nikkimaria. I think I've addressed all of your concerns. Sasata (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support and a comment Since NH₄OH doesn't actually exist (see the article), I'd prefer "ammonia solution (NH₃)", but no big deal. Happy to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jim, I've reworded as suggested. Sasata (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Support reading through now (Slippery jill?! gosh, not heard of this one...) notes below Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... ~~in the Suillaceae family of the Boletales order~~ - just a nonactionable style thing as I know you always write them this way, I must say if it were me, I'd find myself naturally saying (writing) " in the family Suillaceae of the order Boletales" (but I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" way here...just interesting)

~~First described as a~~ Boletus in 1874 - I find this jars a bit - I find myself thinking that the italicised genus name refers to the genus and not generally a member of the genus, or if it does then "species" is appended. Personally, I'd feel happier with "First described as a member of the genus Boletus in 1874"

before it was assigned its current name in 1983 --> "before it was assigned its current binomial name in 1983" (and link bolded bit)

S. salmonicolor is different from the species S. cothurnatus "distinct"? (scans a little better and more exact meaning(?))

In their 2000 monograph of North American boletes, Alan Bessette and colleagues list the two taxa separately, noting that the range of S. cothurnatus is difficult to determine because of confusion with S. salmonicolor - they don't mention intermediate forms at the junctions of their ranges do they?

~~I'd link gastrointestinal to Human gastrointestinal tract, although ideally there'd be something to link "gastrointestinal symptoms" to (I might raise this at WP:MED sometime)~~

The last two sentences look a bit lonely at the bottom of the Taxonomy and phylogeny section. I'd tack them onto the end of the first para, where I think they easily segue off the last sentence there.

Otherwise looking good. I've been reduced to nitpicking (again) :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cas, I agree with and have implemented all of your suggestions above. Bessette et al. don't mention intermediate forms in their book. Sasata (talk) 14:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there's a problem in the page range here:

Kretzer A, Li Y, Szaro T, Bruns TD. (1996). "Internal transcribed spacer sequences from 38 recognized species of Suillus sensu lato: Phylogenetic and taxonomic implications". Mycologia 88 (5): 776–5.

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.