Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boletus calopus/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose 10:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Boletus calopus

[edit]

Boletus calopus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sasata and I are going though a few boletes and nominating for featured article status - timely as we've had a bolete expert join the wiki-fray which has been fantastic. This is a shorter one and we've scoured the sources. Let us know anything we can fix or do better. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cwmhiraeth

A solid-looking article. A few comments on the prose etc.
  • "found in Asia, Northern Europe and North America." - Is this correct capitalisation?
Northern Europe is capitalised apparently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... will most likely be placed in a new genus pending further study" - Does not "pending" mean "during"?
my meaning is that it will change genus once further study has taken place. I thought "pending further study" was a simple way and accessible way of writing this...? Have substituted "after" but I feel this word doesn't illustrate causation/link quite like "pending" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about "following"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, I must say I prefer "following" to "after" but neither capture the "it-hasn't-happened-yet-and-once-it-does-X-will-happen" that "pending" conveys..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...rendered unpalatable by its intensely bitter taste, which does not disappear with cooking." - No comma needed here in my opinion. Same in Toxicity section.
disagree - it is an emphatic subordinate clause which relates to the taste Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "red-pored boletes" - Red-pored?
not an official term but merely a descriptor (i.e. boletes with red pores) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "red" was an error because the pores of this species are in fact yellow, but perhaps it is intended and B. calopus is grouped with a number of red-pored species in a clade. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah I see - yes there are a bunch of other boletes of similar colours and blue-staining properties and they generally have red pores (Boletus satanas, Boletus luridus etc.) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(named for Boletus dupainii), well-removed from the core group of the type species Boletus edulis " - Why give these binomials in full?
abbreviated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The attractively coloured stipe" - I thought use of such terms as "attractively" was abjured. (In lead too.)
Hmmm, I kinda liked the construction as a succinct way of indicating that it was pretty because it was colourful (which is what the source says). If I just say "colourful" is that sufficient...will ask on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The pale yellow flesh stains blue when broken, spreading out from the damaged area." - What is spreading out here?
the discoloration - clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its smell can be strong, and has been likened to ink." - Is this the smell of the flesh or of the whole bolete?
Well, can be either I guess - the source doesn't specify, just says "the scent.." Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the varieties be mentioned in the Taxonomy section?
they are - but their physical attributes are mentioned in the description section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but the stipes of latter species are not reticulated." - Perhaps "this species"
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edible species such as Boletus edulis lack a red stipe." - Why give this binomial in full?
I missed it - abbreviated now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now supporting on prose and comprehensiveness Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

split sentence with a semicolon and changed "'it" to "the mushroom" to make it flow better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • cracks in age. —is "in" right?
changed to "with" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • colour/coloration... —this is what happens when a Canadian and Australian collaborate (:
britishised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • has been likened to ink—not sure how helpful that is these days, but does no harm, no action needed
yes this puzzled me too - no idea what ink smells like.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fruit bodies occur singly or in large groups.[20] It grows on chalky ground from—subject of "it" is plural fruit bodies as written
Changed "it" to "the species" to break subject - I suppose I could have pluralised it to they as well... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3-octanol—I'd delink like the other compounds, link goes to 1-octanol, so misleading as it stands
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No further queries, supporting now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images are all CC, no issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: did you happen to do a source review as well? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support—the prose is extremely clear, smooth and tight. The article is fascinating and informative, and the images are very useful. This is the kind of work Wikipedia should be featuring. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Fixed; thanks Nikkimaria. Sasata (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Boletus_calopus/archive1&oldid=1144363003"