Talk:Xerocomellus zelleri

Xerocomellus zelleri 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
January 19, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 25, 2009.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the mushrooms Boletus zelleri, B. mirabilis, Suillus americanus, S. brevipes, S. lakei, and Leccinum manzanitae are all examples of edible boletes?

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
A few points listed below...

B. MoS compliance:
Some very minor points below
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
All sources look great.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Could we perhaps have a ref at the end of the first paragraph in the description section?

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

"Xerocomus,[3] In 1959" New sentence?

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Rolf Singer, Snell and Esther A. Dick" Who are they? Mycologists? Also, do we have no given name for Snell?

Mentioned mycologists. I didn't give Snell's full name as it's in the previous sentence—wasn't sure if maintaining consistency or reducing redundancy was the lesser evil. Sasata (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Harry D. Thiers," Again, some context as to who he is would be good. Not essential, as we have a greenlink, but still nice.

Mentioned American mycologist. Sasata (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The specific epithet zelleri is in honor of Professor Sanford Myron Zeller, mycologist at Oregon State University, who first found the species in Seattle.[6]" Did he discover it before it was described then, or what? Did he know the chap who did the first description?

More detail added. Sasata (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"when bruised, they may turn" But? However? Needs some sort of conjunctive.

Added "although". Sasata (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"at the base, solid, the flesh fibrous in texture" Again, doesn't exactly read like a full sentence.

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"with this species" Avoid self-references- the species?

Just removed the phrase, as it's obvious what's being talked about. Sasata (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"in the hyphae" link?

Done. Sasata (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"the fall of" I appreciate it's an American species, but "Autumn" is a more universal term. Feel free to keep it as is, just a thought.

In this particular instance, I'll keep it as is, because it's solely North American, but rest assured I am more sensitised to the linguistic preferences of our neighbours across the pond. (note the spelling of that sentence, designed to give you a more comfortable read.) Sasata (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"diameter, elongate vertically until" Again, a conjunctive would be nice.

Changed elongate -> lengthen to reduce possible confusion. Sasata (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"periphery" Link? I don't actually know what that means.

Changed periphery -> outside edge. Sasata (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"lower. [15]" Space

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"grows solitary" "Solitary" is not an adverb. Solitarily?

Fixed. Sasata (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally great, as usual. I'll be happy to pass this once the minor issues above are addressed. A few thoughts in case you are considering taking this to FAC:

A slightly expanded description would be good- I get the impression there are further details you could add if you had another search (including the edibility and similar species section- comparative pictures would be a good addition if the section was longer)

Agree. I'll be working on more bolete species this year and will probably add some more details when a couple of books I've ordered arrive. Sasata (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is a little short

Added a few more details to the lead. Sasata (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more pictures would be nice- a picture of the pins would add a lot

I rechecked Mushroom Observer and found something a bit different for visual variety. Sasata (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One line paragraphs are usually best avoided

I recall using that line when I was reviewing on of your GANs :) Sasata (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human uses/interactions make this of interest to people other than us fungi fans- further thoughts on edibility, any symbology, conservation, chemicals... That sort of thing. Dunno if there is anything else, but I always feel that adds a lot to species articles

I would if I could, but there's not a whole lot written about the species. Sasata (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, the fly larvae note caught my attention- details or gory pictures? :)

GA is probably the end of the line for this article, there's not a lot more to say about it, and with reviewers and commentary in short supply at FAC, I'm restricting myself to submitting articles about species that might be unusual or interesting to a non-fungus fan. Thanks very much for your review! Sasata (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to leave a note on my talk page once you've made the changes, but I will be watching this page. J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And promoted. :) J Milburn (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xerocomellus zelleri?

Species fungorum has, but latest name not on mycobank. Nuhn 2013 study uses the name....so do we wait for mycobank or make the move.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest adding Xerocomellus zelleri to the first sentence and to the taxonomy section, but waiting for mycobank to make the move. I created a redirect for Xerocomellus zelleri. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with waiting for Mycobank. When I get a free chuck of time I'll send them an update. When it gets reviewed and approved by the curators we should be good to go here. Sasata (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to point out that Mycobank is maintained and updated largely by volunteer effort. The paper describing Xerocomellus lists X. zelleri in the species of the genus, so it has been validly published. I will send an email to the mycobank people to update the MycoBank record anyway though.M.E.Nuhn (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]