Talk:Boletus pinophilus

GA Review

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

Good article on hold

This article on hold. Once the issues below have been dealt with, it can be promoted. Below is how the article compares with the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Mostly, some issues below.

2. Factually accurate?: ✓ Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: This is my main concern. I've provided a few pointers below, but I'm sure there are plenty more sources out there that could be searched for information. The description seems to be a little sparse- perhaps it could be expanded?

4. Neutral point of view?: ✓ Pass

5. Article stability? ✓ Pass

6. Images?: ✓ Pass

Not a bad article, by any means, but does need some work.— J Milburn (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• "A. Pilát & A. Dermek."- Wikilinks? Full names? Why the & rather than "and"? (old mistake. fixed)
• Cap and stem should instead link to pileus (mycology) and stipe (mycology) respectively. (done)
• Why are the first and last paragraphs of the description separate? They seem to cover similar ground. Could they not be merged? (yes. done)
• No mention of the pores? The mycomorphbox says that they are adnexed, but there is no mention of them in the prose.
• "with Scots pine in the U.K.[7]" "U.K." is the country, so it needs another full stop/period. Alternatively, "Scots pine in Britain." (done)
• There is no thorough addressing of where it is actually found- there's a casual mention of it "possibly" being in the U.S. in the lead, but this isn't discussed in the main body. Further, I gather it is found in Europe from the countries mentioned and the category- it would be good if this could be made explicit somewhere.
• "Ts. Hinkova (1986). Нашите Гъби. Zemizdat (Bulgaria)." ISBN, or other identifier?

(this is the dilemma we have for many species, in that the information on range is often obscure. Thus the western north american are another species, but there is no mention of whether it occurs in eastern north america in the audubon guide or other books. An interesting paper here gives it as a mexican mushroom, but given this is 2003, I have no idea whether this is the same as pinophilus or the new NW US species (arrgh)!). I will see what else I can find)

• Some more information about the alternative specific names, both in the lead and taxonomy section, would be good.
  • According to Phillips, Roger (1981). Mushrooms and Other Fungi of Great Britain and Europe. London: Pan Books. p. 194. ISBN 0330264419., the authority for Boletus pinicola is (Vitt.) Venturi, while for B. edulis var pinicola, the authority is Vitt.

Sasata's comments

Hi, just wanted to add a few comments. Sasata (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• a common name is the "Pinewood King Bolete" (added)
• wikilink subspecies and form in the lead (good points, esp. form. done)
• "var." and "f." in the taxobox synonym list shouldn't be italicized (done)
• "The spores are cylindric-ellipsoid, smooth, with drops..." specify that they're oil drops (done)
• references could use a bit of formatting for internal consistency (eg., refs #2 and #5 needs parentheses around the years, ref#3 has double period after title, refs #10 and #11 need page #'s)
• regarding edibility, B. pinophilus is known to be a mercury bioaccumulator, so one might want to say something about being careful where these mushrooms are gathered for consumption. (done and reffed)

• I looked for the page numbers for those references, and I'm unable to find the books anywhere (I even checked in the local library). Not sure how to address this. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 05:58, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a big deal for GA level. The Jordan book was online so I added the page # for that; wouldn't worry about the others though. Sasata (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Try contacting the person who originally added them as a source, but, as Sasata says, I wouldn't worry too much about it. J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks then. The remaining issues should be fixed shortly. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

GA passed

I've passed the article, as I feel that much work has been done, and the article is currently in a good shape. It's by no means perfect, but this is a GA review, not a FAC. I'm leaving the above comments, as there are still things there that can be worked with if anyone is interested in improving the article further. J Milburn (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Boletus pinophilus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.davidarora.com/arora_california_porcini.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523094609/http://static.msi.umn.edu/rreports/2010/211.pdf to http://static.msi.umn.edu/rreports/2010/211.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727172151/http://www.persoonia.org/Issue/20/01.pdf to http://www.persoonia.org/Issue/20/01.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080919094845/http://www.mtsn.tn.it/bresadola/gallery.asp?code=4&lang=eng to http://www.mtsn.tn.it/bresadola/gallery.asp?code=4&lang=eng

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Edibility

It says:

"Furthermore, pores should be removed as they contain the highest concentrations of pollutants."

I'm unable to check the source, but I believe this should be "spores". Pores are normally holes, and therefore hollow. Also, I don't know how one would set about removing pores.

MrDemeanour (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)