# Talk:Boletus abruptibulbus

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boletus abruptibulbus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) 08:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've had a read now, obviously pretty good, but some quibbles Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 09:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The lead seems a little short at just over three lines, even for a relatively small article. Nothing else worth mentioning there? Also, with so few words, should be able to avoid repeat of "known".
Added a couple of sentences, and removed a "known". Sasata (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The specific epithet abruptibulbus refers to the shape of the bulb at the base of the stem — what does the abrupti- part of the specific name mean?
Added. Sasata (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The cap margin is curved inward when young, but becomes curved downward when mature. — any way to avoid repeat of "curved"?
Now "bent". Sasata (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
a "pleasant" odor — not sure about the quote marks, is it pleasant or not?
Hmm, I tend to put words that are subjective opinions in quote marks, but I suppose it doesn't lose anything without. Sasata (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The stem is solid (i.e., not hollow) — stating the obvious?
Not sure if it's quite that obvious: normally, the word means "firm" or "stable"; in mycological jargon it specifically means "a stem that is not hollow". Sasata (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
A dilute solution (12%) of ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH) — I'd much prefer ammonia (NH3) solution, since less than one percent of the dissolved ammonia  is in the form you give, see the ammonium hydroxide article
I changed it to "A drop of dilute ammonia (as a 12% NH4OH solution) placed", as the source says "With 12% of aqueous solution of ammonia (NH4OH)", does this work? Sasata (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer it without the dubious formula, but no big deal Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 06:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
mounted in a dilute potassium hydroxide — can you mount something in a solution?
Sounds odd, but it's standard usage. I linked this to Microscope slide#Mounting to clarify. Sasata (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
5–7.2 µm, 7.2–9 µm — unless there is a reason why one end of the range is less accurate than the other, should be 5.0-7.2 and 7.2-9.0
The source gives them this way, but I suspect it's just poor copyediting on their part, as their ± errors are a minimum of 2 sig figs. Added zeros. Sasata (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
relatively unique — ???
Changed to "distinctive". Thanks for reviewing! Sasata (talk) 04:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, that was fairly painless
GA review (see here for 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: