Talk:Boletus curtisii/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 09:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Mine. Review to follow soon. J Milburn (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• The lead feels a little short for the length of the article.

• Fattened. Sasata (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• It's not clear in the taxonomy section that/why Singer's move was not held up

• Hopefully this makes sense now. Sasata (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• "but that a later (1872) description by Berkeley,[12] however," The "however" is probably not needed, but I appreciate that the hanging footnote may not look great

• Tweaked sentence. Sasata (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• "It does not turn blue when bruised or injured." To someone unfamiliar with boletes, this may well be a "so what?" moment. Perhaps "Unlike some other boletes..." or something?

• Added. Sasata (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• "thiomethylated" and "pulvinic acid" are seemingly unexplained technical terms

• Removed the first, explained the second. Sasata (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• "The pigments responsible for the color of B. curtisii are entirely different than the pulvinic acid compounds found in Pulveroboletus species." Are members of the genus typically a similar colour? It's not clear what the relevance of this is.

• Moved this sentence to the taxonomy section where it should be more relevant. Sasata (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• "William Chambers Coker and Alma Beers considered Charles Horton Peck's Boletus inflexus (described from New York in 1895[9]) as well as Henry Curtis Beardslee's 1915 B. carolinensis to be the same species as B. curtisii.[10]" Is this a claim that is respected today? What do MycoBank/Index Fungorum think?

• Have added their (non)-opinions. Sasata (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Images, sources, stability and such are great. Not a lot to say here- a solid little article! It's interesting that Alan Rockefeller found the species in Mexico, but that this is something that would not be expected, based on published sources. I've no doubt that the identification is correct, but I'm pondering about whether it could be consider a reliable self-published source for the seemingly uncontroversial information that the species has managed to cross the border from Texas to Mexico. Some Googling suggests that, while Dr. Rockefeller is a highly respected amateur mycologist, he's not a published academic (at least, not in mycology) and so it may not be appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've avoided this conundrum by finding a source for its presence in Mexico! Sasata (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I've made a few edits to the article- please double-check that you are happy with them. J Milburn (talk) 10:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

• All good. Thanks for the review! Sasata (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

• Great work- I'm now happy to promote. J Milburn (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)