Talk:Suillus americanus/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not much to do :) In Taxonomy and class., this paragraph is confusing:

"S. americanus was first described by American mycologist Charles Horton Peck in 1888. Peck had initially collected specimens in New York, near Sand Lake, Albany, and Port Jefferson in 1869, and in his publication he indicated that he had originally listed these collections as Boletus flavidus in his 1869 Report of the State Botanist (published in 1872). However, as was pointed out in a 1986 publication, the 1869 report does not actually mention the species; rather, Peck's field notes that year (which served as the basis for the report) reference a collection at Sand Lake upon which the original description was most likely based. Because Peck failed to designate a type specimen, one of the Sand Lake specimens was lectotypified in 1986."

Just be sure it reads more clearly on which publication or species name is being referred to. hmm...

How does it read now? Sasata (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Klear! Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the sentence "In 1931, French mycologist Jean-Edouard Gilbert transferred the species to the genus Ixocomus, a now-defunct taxon that has since been subsumed into Suillus.", define 'subsumed', though not necessary to define in that particular sentence. Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, wik't subsumed. Sasata (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as a bonus mycological homage, I added an image of Peck's stern visage to glare at you as you read about taxonomy :) Sasata (talk) 08:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He looks like the illegitimate son of Raymond Massey... and Ichebod Craine! Rcej (Robert) - talk 05:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results of review

GA review (see here for criteria)

The article Suillus americanus passes this review, and has been upgraded to good article status. The article is found by the reviewing editor to be deserving of good article status based on the following criteria:

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: Pass