Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tylopilus felleus/archive1

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 10:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Tylopilus felleus[edit]

Featured article candidates/Tylopilus felleus/archive1

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC) & Sasata (talk · contribs)[reply]

Another pored mushroom, this one a foul-tasting one. A joint effort by the clinically thorough Sasata and me. Lots of eyes have been on it. I think we're nearly there. So come and have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. Thought I'd found this one once, but it turned out to be a Boletus species.

"Anaxoboletus"- Not certain about this, but if this is an informal name and (sort of) higher than a genus, I don't think it should be italicised.

fixed - aligned with source now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"features outlined below" avoid self references?

removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to say that "Index Fungorum" doesn't need to be italicised. The MOS unhelpfully says that "Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis."

hmmmm, the wiki article is italicised and it is a major work. Am open-minded on this one. I slightly prefer italics..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It measures 7–10 cm (2.8–3.9 in)—rarely to 20 cm (7.9 in)[2] tall, and 2–3 cm (0.8–1.2 in) wide—and can bulge out to 6 cm (2.4 in) across at the base." This doesn't read that well. I think you'd need to move the second dash to before the word "tall", as the text between the dashes does not form a coherent subclause.

yep, done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably showing my "interested amateur" status, but the mycomorphbox lists this as mycorrhizal, but the description in the ecology section makes it sound saprotrophic?

good question - all these boletoid things have been traditionally considered mycorrhizal...but this one has evidence casting doubt on that. I don't recall any of the sources stating outright that it was saprotrophic though....need to double check. The safest might be to have an asterisk/see text notation in the mycomorphbox. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now stated explicitly in the Ecology section that it's mycorrhizal, and added a sentence to give some context about nitrogen cycling with respect to its role as a mycorrhizal partner. Oddly, none of the sources I have discuss the significance of its occasional fruiting on old conifer stumps and buried wood. Sasata (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Fruiting season is from August to September, though can be as early as June and late as November,[18] in many of the northern temperate zones.[16]" Double check- do you mean it's June to November but usually August to September in northern temperate zones (which is what it currently says), or do you mean it's August to September everywhere, but June to November in northern temperate zones?

the former - rejigged it a little Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"skim milk" Wouldn't that be "skimmed milk"?

Ahaa, didn't think of that - we call it skim milk in Oz - changed to British spelling. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally very strong. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, assuming source/image checks come back fine. One outstanding issue, but it's not a massive problem. J Milburn (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sasata (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim I can't see much here that J Milburn has missed, so I'm happy to support, just one query below Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Petter Karsten transferred it to Tylopilus in 1881, a genus diagnosed by its pink spores and adnate tubes,[4] as the large genus Boletus was carved up into smaller genera. — I'd move the final clause to the start so that cause precedes effect

Changed as suggested, thanks for the review. Sasata (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (own work, Mushroom Observer). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 07:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - I would suggest adding states/countries to lesser-known locations, but sources are otherwise unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. We decided to use a more concise approach to given publisher locations (not giving state/country): it's easy to keep consistent, and it makes no difference on the reader's ability to find the source, given that all of the other more significant bibliographic details are there. Sasata (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comment~~ – ~~Just one thing from me: in Taxonomy, ref 12 should be moved outside the parenthesis mark.~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 02:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Sasata (talk) 06:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:31, 6 July 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.