Talk:Sutorius eximius

Sutorius eximius has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 23, 2015. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Sutorius eximius appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 September 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that although the lilac-brown bolete is eaten in the Hengduan Mountains, it has reportedly poisoned people in New England?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sutorius eximius.

Wikipedia

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sutorius eximius/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 14:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Recognizing its genetic and morphological distinctiveness, they created the genus Sutorius, placing S. eximius as the type species." Is "placing" really the right word, here?

Tweaked prose. Sasata (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does "spindle shaped" need a dash?

Only if it were being used as a compound adjective (e.g. "spindle-shaped spores"). Sasata (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could we perhaps have an indication of the range of Tylopilus violatinctus? (I tweaked that paragraph a little- please make sure you're happy with it!)

Done. Sasata (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are your five continents (as mentioned in the lead)? I'm seeing North America, South America and Asia- this is also reflected in the categories.

I seem to have misread the Halling paper; it's the genus that has been reported from 5 continents (S. australensis from Australia and a not-yet described species from Africa). Fixed. Sasata (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a complaint at all, I just wanted to say how much I liked the phrase "esculent properties". I write a lot about food in my real-world work, so I'll try to work that in!

I'm pretty sure I lifted that particular phrase from Casliber! Sasata (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should your Smith/Thiers source have an italicised title?

Oops, wrong cite template ... fixed. Sasata (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps include a translated title for your Pomerleau source?

Done. Sasata (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting on the Wang/Zang strikes me as a little off- how about something like:
- Wang L, Yang Z-L. (2006). "Wild edible fungi of the Hengduang Mountains, southwestern China". In Kleinn C, Yang Y, Weyerhäuser H, Stark M. (eds.). The Sustainable Harvest of Non-Timber Forest Products in China (PDF). Proceedings of the Sino-German Symposium 2006. pp. 58–65.

Yeah that's better, done. Sasata (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images mostly check out- I'm not adding that "license check" template as I'm not sure if I count as a trusted user any more (I lost my adminship due to "inactivity"...). The one problem is that the source on the lead image is dead, and it hadn't been checked by anyone; I can't find the image or user on the site after a quick search. Sorry to be a pain, but I think something needs to be done about this before I can promote.

Yes, that user and his images seem to have disappeared on MO; shame, as it was a good photo. I have replaced it now. Sasata (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really nice little article- the only concern is the image. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your reviewing efforts, it is much appreciated! Sasata (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That was quick! Another glance through (I added a tad to the references...) shows I'm happy that this is ready for GA status. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]