Talk:Chalciporus piperatus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 19:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Very strong, love the pictures.

• The major issue is that you at some points consider "Boletus hypochryseus" a separate species, and at some points list it as a subspecies. The same with "Chalciporus amarellus". If there's controversy, obviously, say so, but currently the article reads oddly for it. If they are varieties, then a mention of morphological characteristics and distributions would be helpful.

• Ok, I've treated both as varieties following the lead of Index Fungorum, who seem to be following the opinion of Klofac 2006. I've mentioned the differing opinions in the taxonomy section, as well as morphological characteristics and distributions in the appropriate sections. Sasata (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• "piperatus is derived from the Latin word piperatus" It's not really derived from, it's the same as. How about "French mycologist Pierre Bulliard described the species as Boletus piperatus in 1790.[2] The specific name, piperatus, means "peppery" in Latin." (This also cuts down on repetition.)

yup/neater/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• "and there is yellow mycelium at the base" There are yellow mycelia, surely?

hmmm, I always think of it as a group/collective noun...and it seems to be used as such. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Here are a few thoughts being picky:

• "on another fungus" What, just one? Even if it's only one other species, I think "fungi" would be best.

• I added the identify of the other fungus. Sasata (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• "offshoot" Jargon

• Hmmm, I thought that "offshoot" was essentially a layman's word of "branching lineage", but perhaps in this case the linked technical term is more self-explanatory. Sasata (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• "was made a variety of C. piperatus in 1974" I don't like "made"- if you don't want to repeat "reclassified", you could try something like "described as", "demoted to", "recognised as" or "consigned as"? I particularly like "described as", as this avoids taking a position on the (you suggest) contentious question as to whether it is a species in its own right.

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• "arrangement where the outermost hyphae" How about "arrangement in which the outermost hyphae"?

done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• "native Myrtle beech" Why caps? Is it named after a person called Myrtle?

hangover from all-title-case days. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• "pp. 106–07" and "p. 451:2" catch my eye.

err, what's wrong with the first one..? The second is fig. II on plate 451 - I think I will tweak the ref. used "at" parameter. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Why not 106-7? J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

And, if I was really being picky-

• "Described by Pierre Bulliard in 1790 as Boletus piperatus, it is only distantly related to other members of the genus" Someone not familiar with binomials may reasonably ask "What genus?"

ok, added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• "The genus Chalciporus was an early offshoot from other boletes in the family" Evolutionarily early or taxonomically early?

evolutionarily...I thought that was implied - you reckon slipping in "evolutionarily" as an adverb is helpful? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

No, you're right, it's probably obvious. There may be a better way of putting this, but I can't quite see it. J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• You've got two very short paragraphs- try to lose them if you're looking at FAC.
• "Rubinoboletus rubinus" You mention where the other similar species are found, but not this one.

• Added. Sasata (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Again for FAC purposes- could you perhaps explain precisely how mycoparasites live?
• The chemistry section is currently a little opaque.

Sources look fine. The variety/separate species thing is the only real issue; other than that, it's a great little article. J Milburn (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

You've dealt with the actual issues; the rest I'll leave hanging as pointers if you're considering FAC. (As an aside, and I'm guessing you're just having to follow the sources here, but it's surely unlikely that the variety is mycorrhizal if the species as a whole isn't.) Great work, as ever! J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)