Talk:Pulveroboletus bembae/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ucucha 12:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why do the external links call it bembaensis?~~
I have no idea. It's weird, because according to the Mycobank page, De Greef was the one who entered the data. I have emailed him to ask for a clarification. Sasata (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to wrap up this loose end, Jérôme Degreef wrote back and explained that they originally named the species bembaensis and submitted it to MycoBank under this name (publication rules for Mycotaxon apparently says new names must be submitted to MycoBank first). Then the nomenclature review requested a name change, as bemaensis is "grammatically correct, but linguistically inappropriate". So the name was changed to bambae prior to publication, but this was not communicated to MycoBank (/Fungorum). They have now been alerted, and the name should be changed in the database soon. Sasata (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The lead could (again) be a bit longer.~~

Now a bit longer. Sasata (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think you should insert a sentence that says "De Greef and Kesel" described the species in a 2009 paper" or something like that.~~

Done. Sasata (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~"pronounced suprahilar depression"—suprahilar?~~

Glossed. Sasata (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No images, and sources look reliable. Ucucha 12:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking up my GAN review again. This is my first attempt at a GA on a species with so little information available... I was inspired to do so from seeing some of your efforts :) I think I'm going to try this again with more recently published fungal taxa. For one, the research is a lot easier, and I'm thinking maybe the mycologists who described these species will see these articles and be inspired to write some themselves. Maybe I'm dreaming, but it's worth a try. Sasata (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fixes; I am passing this as a GA now. Yes, little-known species are easier (although one sometimes also has to bury pretty deeply to find the little that is there), but species that we do know a lot about also have more interesting information. Ucucha 15:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]