Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imperator torosus/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2015 [1].

Imperator torosus edit

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a fairly concise article with just about everything there is to know on this fungus. Sasata and I have worked on it over the years, so there's two of us to fix things quick-sharp if folks find anything that needs improving. Have at it. (NB: Is a wikicup nomination for me) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FunkMonk edit

  • I'll have a look soon, will probably also do an image review. FunkMonk (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elias Magnus Fries and Christopher Theodor Hök" Some authors get "presentations", others don't, should probably be consistent.
added these two - there are so many I will think how to minimise repetition... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "distinct from the B. pachypus described by Fries himself." Meaning seems a bit unclear. Had fries given another species this name?
yes - I will think how to reword.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He reported in his 1838 Epicrisis" which is what?
  • Epicrisis Systematis Mycologici seu Synopsis Hymenomycetum full name now given. Sasata (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
this was a work where he covered all fungi that had been published to that date, with some corrections and annotations - will expand in his article and maybe make a standalone article at some point Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was thinking you could add "his 1838 book Epicrisis". Otherwise we don't know what it is. FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
aah ok, done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boletus (now Imperator) rhodopurpureus or B. (now Imperator) luteocupreus" Seems a bit confusing to have the (now Imperator) within the wikilinks, maybe add a single (both now considered Imperator) after the two names?
yeah..done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get some more dates under taxonomy? We jump from 1948 to 2013 within two sentences, but the reader wouldn't know.
often taxa "lie fallow" for many years. I will take another look at the sources though Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was classified in Boletus section Luridi" This made little sense to me as a non-fungus guy, perhaps "was classified in the Luridi section of the genus Boletus" or some such? Also, classified by who?
have rejigged and elaborated slightly Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "formally published the subsection Torosi of section Luridi" As above, could be written in a less jargony way.
Okay, I tried rejigging like this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Boletaceae phylogeny, brawny bolete was most closely related" The brawny bolete?
yeah..added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is inconsistency in whether you use the scientific or common name throughout the article.
I have done that to reduce repetition. Also felt it was odd to keep calling it I. torosus before it was assigned to that genus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Israel." But not in the rest of the Near East? is it introduced?
Fungi are elusive in that they are invisible unless fruiting, so the records can be pretty sparse. It is not introduced and can only record what we find. I don't recall finding records for elsewhere but will take another sweep. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, with the UK occurrence, and the images apparently from Germany, it seems a bit odd... Perhaps it has a wider distribution than the sources used say? FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the United Kingdom, it is listed as a "priority species"" Just before you say it is native to southern Europe?
  • "only distantly related to the type species of Boletus" Which is? Not described as such in the article itself.
It's Boletus edulis - I converted to an mdash to make it clearer its not a series of different entities after the comma Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'd like some more detailed distribution info, as the distribution seems inconsistent, but if this can't be found in the sources, not much to do, rest looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 10:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Let's just get to it. Both images are appropriately licensed (otrs permissions), but I wonder if the taxobox image could get some kind of caption? Where are the depicted specimens? FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to that is proving elusive.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source seems to be a website about hiking in Germany... FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM edit

Some quick comments:

  • I'm not sure about the comma in the second sentence (similar with the first sentence of the habitat section)
I agree it is a little jarring for flow and have removed both, but once removed we have a problem of an inline ref not coming after any punctuation. Is that a problem? I feel if it is at the end it does compromise ref accuracy a little. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm not opposed to references appearing in that way, but I know some people aren't at all keen. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a change to the bruising info in the lead, but I'm not sure how consistent it is and was with what is said in the description section- sorry if I've made a mess...
looks fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Epicrisis Systematis Mycologici seu Synopsis Hymenomycetum" Should this be capitalised? It's not in the citation
  • "According to Italian mycologist Carlo Luciano Alessio,[1] additional synonyms include Henri Romagnesi's 1948 Boletus purpureus var. xanthocyaneus, and the same taxon, promoted by Romagnesi to distinct species status in 1976,[14] Boletus xanthocyaneus; others, however, consider B. xanthocyaneus a distinct species.[15][16][17]" I don't understand
I think the semicolon confuses things, but I think it can be written better. I need to take a deep breath before tackling that one.....hang on... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I had a go, is that clearer? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much better- you are trying to get across a lot of complex information. Perhaps "promoted" to species would be better than "classified" as species, but I'll leave that up to you. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for taxa that align" Do you mean taxa, here? Or specimens?
  • "this was the only taxon faithful to the original description with a grey cap and yellow pores that slowly turn red" Again, I'm not clear on what you're referring to by "taxon", here.
Sorry, I meant "description" - i.e. Quelet's matching the original of Fries and Secretan...but now there are three "description" s in the one sentence :P Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "subsection" Do we have an article for this rank? If not, perhaps a redlink would be useful?
  • I'm reluctant to make articles for Boletus subtaxa in the midst of the current phylogenetic reorganization of the Boletaceae... perhaps after the molecular dust settles. Sasata (talk)
  • "I. (then Boletus) luteocupreus" Is splitting names like this standard?
no it isn't - I came up with it to clarify its status succinctly. I have rejigged and left taxa at their Boletus names at the time of the study and rejigged so the placing of the other species in Imperator is an footnote here. I can make the placement of luridus and dupaini into another footnote or can just leave out as not that integral to the material Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I like the new approach. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been described as, "having a stone in your hand"." Why the comma? Also, presumably holding one has been described as that, rather than the fruit body itself
  • Changed to "Holding the brawny bolete has been described as "having a stone in your hand"."
  • "sometimes protruding beyond the tubes" This is going to be unclear to unfamiliar readers
changed to "beyond the pored undersurface". Could make it "beyond the cap's pored undersurface" or "hangs over the (cap's) pored undersurface", though am worried that adding "cap's" is unnecessary and makes it a little repetitive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "sordid" brown?
  • The description seems to lack specific information about the pores- what sort of diameter/density are we talking about?
this is proving rather hard to find. I have added "small and round" which is a little bit more informative (but not much). Will add when/what I can source... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fairly uncontroversial. Funny name (sounds a bit scifi) and a slightly whacky authority, but that's not a problem! Josh Milburn (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support unless something crops up I've missed. Well written, answers the key questions, based on good literature, neutral. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to coordinators: In case it's important: I'm a WikiCup participant, and have previously worked with both authors, including joint nominations with Sasata. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done; I've not checked for missed sources. Just looking at reliability and formatting.

  • Translated article/book titles may be a useful addition for those not in English. I note you've provided it in one case, but not others- consistency would be good.
  • Translations now provided for all foreign-language titles (Cas, please double-check the Latin ones ... I struggled with Google translate). Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am struggling with the formatting on the Alessio source
  • Perhaps it looks odd because the title italicization reverses the genus italics, and the unitalicized series titles follows the title ... but I think the template formatting is correct. Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Access date for the British Mycological Society source?
  • I'm happy to take your word for it that the capitalisation on the foreign language book titles is appropriate, but it may be worth double-checking
  • Latin and French book titles are often published in sentence case (for reasons I'm not aware of), but I've made them all title case for consistency here. Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • One was changed in the prose above- I'm not sure which way is "more" correct, I'm just aiming for consistency. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The JSTOR link on your Taxon links is redundant- it's the same as the DOI.
  • There's an inconsistency as to whether you provide locations for book publishers- I've no strong preference
  • Language for the Flammer article?
  • Possible courtesy link? I think it's an offprint, but it should be functionally identical to the final publication.
    Added link. Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the Assyov source reliable? Also, are you attached to the italics on the website name? Though the MOS is a bit back-and-forth on it, this is not a kind of website which is specifically mentioned as requiring italics.
  • Assyov is faculty member of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences who did his PhD on Bulgarian boletes. He has several relevant publications, and is one of the authors of the genus Imperator, so I think his website qualifies as a reliable self-published source for info on Boletales species. Website name now unitalicized. Sasata (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps an accessdate for the Joint Nature Conservation Committee source? Also, does "Report" need to be capitalised?
  • I wouldn't bother providing ISSNs, unless you have an overriding reason in the Benedek & Pál-Fám source?

You've really delved into some obscure-sounding journals, here! Josh Milburn (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support from Jim With two hard-core FAC contributors, there is nothing I can see to prevent me supporting this excellent article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thx Jim Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I read this with ease today and I found it very informative. I can't offer any comments I'm adraid as you have it all in check. Sterling work! CassiantoTalk 17:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx/much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Imperator_torosus/archive1&oldid=1136097154"