Talk:Boletus pinophilus

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 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.

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)