Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boletus calopus/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 10:03, 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]
- 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, 3 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?
- "... 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]
- "...rendered unpalatable by its intensely bitter taste, which does not disappear with cooking." - No comma needed here in my opinion. Same in Toxicity section.
- "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]
- 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]
- 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]
- "(named for Boletus dupainii), well-removed from the core group of the type species Boletus edulis " - Why give these binomials in full?
- "The attractively coloured stipe" - I thought use of such terms as "attractively" was abjured. (In lead too.)
- "The pale yellow flesh stains blue when broken, spreading out from the damaged area." - What is spreading out here?
- "Its smell can be strong, and has been likened to ink." - Is this the smell of the flesh or of the whole bolete?
- Should the varieties be mentioned in the Taxonomy section?
- "...but the stipes of latter species are not reticulated." - Perhaps "this species"
- "Edible species such as Boletus edulis lack a red stipe." - Why give this binomial in full?
- A final query, is this an ectomycorrhizal species? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now supporting on prose and comprehensiveness Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overlooked this, I'll review in next few daysJimfbleak - talk to me? 12:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Support
Commentsfrom Jim predictably few problems, but a couple of niggles before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply] - Christian Hendrik Persoon described it in 1801,[6] its specific name derived...—no obvious connection between the two halves of the sentence as written, reads a bit strangely
- cracks in age. —is "in" right?
- colour/coloration... —this is what happens when a Canadian and Australian collaborate (:
- has been likened to ink—not sure how helpful that is these days, but does no harm, no action needed
- Fruit bodies occur singly or in large groups.[20] It grows on chalky ground from—subject of "it" is plural fruit bodies as written
- 3-octanol—I'd delink like the other compounds, link goes to 1-octanol, so misleading as it stands
Images are all CC, no issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 6 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
- Be consistent in how editions are notated
- Are the dates for FNs 2 and 6 unknown?
- FN7: location? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 15 September 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) 14:19, 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.