Hi there, I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"described Boletus aereus as le bolet bronzé in 1789" Makes it seem as if the latter is a scientific name as well, though it appears to be a French common name? So isn't it more appropriate to list the name under common names?
Ok, moved Bulliard's common name and rejigged.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"had been sanctioned in 1821" Could it be very briefly explained what this means? I know there's a link, but understanding the subsequent text seems to require that one has read the other article.
It seems the species was moved out of Boletus at one point, but when was it moved back?
Regarding genus name, several authorities up until the 1930s used other genus names but they all fell just out of favour rather than there being a concrete move back to Boletus, so not sure what to do about that.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"established them as a separate species, Boletus regineus." But is it not considered closely related either?
regineus is not closely related to aereus - I added "and belong on a different porcini lineage." They are in a clade with Boletus pinophilus and 3 other North American species. Thought it would be too off-topic to go into too much detial here.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"but this taxon is not considered to have independent taxonomic significance." As in it's not considered distinct? Couldn't it be worded simpler?
trimmed " independent taxonomic significance" but kept adverb in.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"the variety B. aereus var. squarrosus" Shouldn't be in the taxobox as a synonym?
The website link to the taxobox image doesn't seem to work properly anymore. Perhaps it could be refound? Also, it appears permission to use it was given through email, though there is no OTRS confirmation. During a FAC, that might prove problematic.
I think it might be easiest to look at alternatives....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"has a robust and pleasant smell reminiscent of hazelnuts, and a mild sweet taste." Not sure what is done in other articles about edible mushrooms, but isn't this info more relevant under edibility?
I didn't add that so unsure of which of those sources it came from..could easily be argued they are general descriptitve traits. I always put smell in this section and taste is often either way.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"likely suggesting an ecological variant or subspecies rather than a distinct species.[10]" Isn't this info more relevant under taxonomy then?
"The cork oak (Quercus suber) is a key host." Only referred to as "key host" in intro.
removed second link to Quercus suber. also, in body it is called an important symbiont, which I am taking to equate with "key" in intro.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"but ages to a greenish-yellow" Only mentioned in intro.
"Like other boletes, it has tubes extending downward from the underside of the cap, rather than gills" Unique info.
green-yellow and pores/tubes for gills in body now.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unique info in the intro is a pet peeve of mine (it should be a summary of the article), so I always read the into last during reviews, to see if anything new pops up.
Replies
Changes look good, though it is a bit hard to see what is considered done or not, when the responses are "disjointed" from the suggestions... FunkMonk (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I did that because of the commented out note up the top. I thought that was you but if not....I will thread them threaded now.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that note seems to have been added automatically when I started the review. Is that some new thing? FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Last point then, you say "The ectomycorrhizae that B. aereus forms with Castanea sativa has been described in detail", without explaining anything, it seems like a bit of a cop out, or is the information too technical? Would it not be possible to summarise it?
Sigh, can't find that one, but it did lead me to Peintner 2007, which has an interesting conclusion. I might just take it out. Not sure yet. Will have another go at finding it when I can have a stretch of uninterrupted time..My thinking is that it would probably be a tad technical for the lay reader and maybe not essential reading though.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:56, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is technical, and more details probably doesn't belong in here, but I'm of the opinion that wiki articles should start as a jump point for further research, and it's a highly relevant paper for anyone interested in mycorrhizae ... thought it would be better to slip it in the article than as a "Further reading section". Sasata (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I added a one-sentence summary ... sound ok? Sasata (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good to me, more information can never really hurt, I think... FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded 437478 yesterday, and it might do for a lead image. But see if you like any of the other offerings at Mushroom Observer. Sasata (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, text looks good now, only remaining issue is the taxobox image. I'll probably pass this anyway, but we could maybe talk about what should be done. If we really want the image, a mail could sent to the provider again, asking for the OTRS formalities. Otherwise the images and its derivatives need to be nominated for deletion, so they don't float around on Commons for eternity. I'll leave choosing an alternate image to you. FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
