Talk:Suillellus amygdalinus

Suillellus amygdalinus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 10, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 5, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the exposed flesh of the mushroom Boletus amygdalinus (pictured) will immediately turn blue when cut?

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 18:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts-

"fruit bodies, or mushrooms, are characterized by their thick, red to brown cap" Plural/singular
"Although the edibility of the mushroom is not known with certainty, it may be poisonous, and is not recommended for consumption; it may be mistaken for the edible B. erythropus" I think more of a link between the edibility and similar species is needed in this sentence
The linking to Boletus puniceus is a little odd- at first, it implies that there should be an article on the name. Perhaps the phrase "different bolete" should link to the other species?
"In Latin, amygdaline means relating to or resembling an almond.[7]" Presumably, there's no source that links the name to the word? Nothing in the original source?

Unfortunately, no, Thiers doesn't give an indication he picked amygaline as the nomen nudum (he doesn't describe the spores as being that shape, so I dunno), and no other sources I've seen have offered an explanation. Sasata (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"the mushrooms typically changes"
"The species has been implicated" Was implicated?
"but the authors concluded" Implies the authors of the poisonings, which doesn't make much sense
"they are 45–54 by 10–12 µm" They measure, perhaps?
Why do you use both "context" and "flesh"? Are you meaning "context" to apply microscopically, and "flesh" macroscopically? (Also, I may be wrong, but is it not "contex"?)

Just sloppiness; I've changed all to flesh to keep it simple. It's definitely context. Sasata (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that B. eastwoodiae redirects to Boletus pulcherrimus (another of your GAs)

This redirect will be made into a new article shortly. Sasata (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"B. luridiformis is similar in appearance to B. amygdalinus, but has a dark brown to nearly blackish-brown cap, a yellow stem that is densely coated with red pruina (dots), and grows under both broadleaf trees and conifers." Odd sentence
"madrone tree is it associated with" mandrone trees with which it associates?
Can we have the Chinese title in "Tai FL. (1979). "[Sylloge Fungorum Sinicorum]" (in Chinese). 中国真菌总汇. Beijing, China: Science Press, Academica Sinica. p. 815."?

~~:*Did you mean Zhongguo zhen jun zong hui? Sasata (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

This reference has been removed: MycoBank is incorrect in listing Xerocomus puniceus (W.F. Chiu) F.L. Tai as an obligate synonym (I should have picked up on this earlier). Sasata (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Send them an email? J Milburn (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the California Fungi site definitely good? Are the authors noted mycologists?

I'd say it's borderline for FA, but good enough for GA. It's definitely a well-respected sources of information about California mushrooms (which this is); I think the citations are uncontroversial. The authors are (I believe) "amateur" mycologists, but at least one has experience. Sasata (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The images all look fine, but I'm not convinced that the current lead image is the most striking one.

Have moved some around and swapped on out, what do you think? Sasata (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boletus erythropus redirects to Boletus luridiformis. Also, why is the link not mentioned outside of the lead?

The writing's a tad choppy in places, but this isn't FAC! I can't see any other issues, but I'll give it another look through once you've made the above fixes. J Milburn (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review JM, I'll have these fixed up by tomorrow. I'm in the process of updating/expanding/creating red-pored/bluing bolete pages (see discussion at talk:Boletus pulcherrimus); this is the first victim. Sasata (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've responded to your points above, or have used your suggestions where there is no response. Tried to smooth out the choppiness too. How's it looking now? Sasata (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much better; I far prefer the new images. The lead one isn't far from being FPC-worthy. I don't envy you working on these kind of taxonomy-nightmare mushrooms, and I think this article's at the standard I would hope for GA. There are a couple of things which wouldn't be so great at FAC (the dictionary ref is a bit OR-y, the California Fungi site isn't ideal), but I'm happy to promote at this stage. Good work! J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]