Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boletus badius/archive1


 * 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 User:Ian Rose 10:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC).

Boletus badius

 * Nominator(s): 07:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC) &  07:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

and I are nominating this for featured article because it has been reviewed and worked on pretty thoroughly..and we feel we've done everything we can think of. So folks let us know what else we need to do to get this to its best. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber, Sasata. To the nominators: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Be consistent in how editions are formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Support  Comments  nitpicks only;
 * is smooth and coloured in similar though paler tones to the cap - hard to parse.
 * Review of the genus Xerocomus strongly suggested it was polyphyletic, and the genus was not accepted by some mycologists. The stickiness of its wet cap distinguishes it from other species classified within the genus, and hence it has been left in the genus Boletus pending further research.[10] - too many instances of the word genus ;)
 * a larger group informally called anaxoboletus within the Boletineae - are they called "anaxoboletus within the Boletineae"? Maybe punctuation needed.

That's it for now; looks to be well sourced, comprehensive and it reads well. Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments Ceoil; I've smoothed out the bumpy prose above. Sasata (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Happy to support, the article was an interesting and accessible read. Ceoil (talk) 14:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim just a few niggles before I support.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * in prolific numbers—prolificly?
 * hmmm, I feel the former carries a more vivid and engaging tone. I am still pondering though.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a big deal either way  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  12:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * as thus—thus or as such
 * done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * līmātǔlus—why the stresses? Not normally given in Wikipedia articles, not done elsewhere in this FAC
 * they were in the Latin dictionary - as this is discussing the original word as used in Latin rather than the botanical usage...but I see your point. accents removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * FeSO4—name of compound missing (I don't mind if you have ferrous or iron(II) sulphate)
 * added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Why the US sulfate rather than the suggested BE sulphate?  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  12:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * forgot - fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Mucor, Sepedonium sp., Paecilomyces sp. and Diasporangium sp.—either need a sp. after Mucor, or, better, Mucor, Sepedonium, Paecilomyces and Diasporangium species
 * done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * According to a Turkish study, the mushroom has excellent antioxidative properties—stated as if a good thing, discredited science now, see the linked article.
 * I changed this to "In laboratory experiments, extracts of Boletus badius fruit bodies have been shown to have significant antioxidative properties in vitro". ("significant" is a wording used by the source, as was "excellent"). I'm not sure what you mean by discredited science, nor which linked article you refer to. Sasata (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Discredited" may have been a bit strong. It used to be thought that anti-oxidants in foods had beneficial properties (and food companies still promote that), but that's long been proved incorrect, as explained in the antioxidative article  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  06:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * but I could distinguish from the only example I have seen, nor could I—Doesn't make sense. My Latin is very rusty, but he seems to be saying that he tried to distinguish it but couldn't
 * yes that was my understanding as well...but my Latin is rusty and that was google translate. I will double check with someone whose Latin is less rusty.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I got an answer. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Glad to see my "O" level latin wasn't entirely wasted!  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No other concerns, supporting above.
 * thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Cwmhiraeth. Looks good. I will have a detailed look later.
 * There are a few duplicate wikilinks in the Taxonomy section.
 * got 'em Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ... More to come Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "... pigment that concentrates radioactive caesium ..." What does it do with non-radioactive isotopes of caesium?
 * not sure - the paper deals exclusively with radioactive isotopes.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article on caesium, it seems to be an uncommon mineral and I daresay this mushroom would concentrate any isotope but doesn't normally encounter the stuff at all. Its only when it falls from the sky and happens to be a radioactive isotope that it gets the chance. I guess bioaccumulation occurs when an organism has no metabolic pathways to deal with a product it meets. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can generalize like this; this particular mushroom accumulates radioactive caesium because it contains a pigment, norbadione A, that specifically binds to it (which is why it is being researched for possible use in bioremediation of contaminated sites). As to your original question, my guess is that it also would bioaccumulate non-radioactive caesium, but this has not been discussed in the literature probably because is is not very toxic and so not of great scientific interest. Sasata (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In terms of will it bind to a element the isotopes do not matter. If it accumulates radioactive caesium it will accumulate caesium.  The main difference in the exact nature of the accumulation is the relative "speed" of the reaction.  Lighter isotopes are used in biological chemical reactions at a slightly higher rate than the heavy counterpart.  This is the basis of isotopic fractionization and its use in illuminating nutritional strategies.  Erik Hobbie is pretty active in this work.M.E.Nuhn (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What is "porcini"?
 * an Italian term which has become the most popular common name for  Boletus edulis  - hence the clade is B. edulis and close relatives and called by the authors the porcini clade. At some stage in the future, once the genus is fractured the term will redirect to the (much smaller) genus I think... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, "porcini" is used, even in the food industry, to refer to B. edulis and close relatives. In the scientific community porcini=Boletus sensu stricto, which now formally includes more than it did in the 2010 Dentinger paper (he had Xanthoconium separans as outside the Boletus s.str.). We formally returned separans to Boletus and two other species.M.E.Nuhn (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "... Swedish naturalist Elias Magnus Fries. Rolf Singer ..." - I think it is unfortunate finishing one sentence with a name and starting the next one with one like this as it is easy to overlook the period when reading the passage and be confused.
 * that is hard - my initial thoughts are that any rewording make the flow more ungainly. Do you think it is better now Fries is de-linked and Singer remains blue? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You could wikilink ventricose and cheilocystidia.
 * both linked - the latter one is a duplicate link to cystidium, but is worthwhile given the esoteric nature of the word Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "The variety glaber has a smooth (glabrous) stipe" - How does this differ from the stipe of the main variety?
 * I have added a few details about the stipe surface texture of the main variety, so the interested reader should now have no problem distinguishing the two. Sasata (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "The bay bolete is common in coniferous and less commonly mixed woodlands in Europe, from the British Isles, where it is abundant throughout, east to the Black Sea Region in Turkey." - This sentence is a bit complex. Would it be better to say about the British Isles, "throughout which it is abundant"? And maybe Region should not be capitalised.
 * 'Black Sea Region' seems to be all capitalised on a quick google scan Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "The North American distribution extends from eastern Canada west to Minnesota and south to North Carolina, where it fruits from July to November." I don't think the distribution can fruit!
 * Good eye, fixed. Sasata (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "... have had an effect on populations in China," - Does it occur in mainland China as well as Taiwan?
 * yup - added mainland China Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "The tendency for the pores to absorb water means that wiping rather than washing is recommended before using in the kitchen." - I would say "use" rather than "using".
 * gerund overload in sentence reduced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "Polish studies found that although the mushroom bioaccumulates mercury and cobalt from the soil, occasional consumption of mushrooms should not exceed maximum allowable intake doses." - I find this sentence ambiguous. How about "... occasional consumption of mushrooms should not cause maximum allowable intake doses to be exceeded"?
 * That's much better, changed. Sasata (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's all the rather trivial prose concerns I have at the moment. Altogether, a very nice article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The points I raised have been satisfactorily addressed and I now support this candidacy on grounds of comprehensiveness and prose quality. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Support. The prose doesn't seem as a choppy as it was just after the GA review. Answers all the questions, well sourced and formatted. Again (to reiterate from the GA review), the only worry would be the lack of mention of some described forms/varieties. I'm not going to withhold my support on that point, but I do wonder whether there is a place in the article for them. J Milburn (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's funny - the prose of this article was stubbornly choppy and seemed to require more tinkering than normal to smoothe out (still with some chores above!). I will be at the uni library today which might be good in terms of finding more about subspecies. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been reluctant to mention them in this article because they don't seem taxonomically relevant: they are mostly historical, and I have been unable to find reference to most in my more recent literature. I wouldn't be adverse to including a line like: "Other historical varieties and forms that have been described include ..., ..., and ...; these are not considered taxonomically significant. Does that sound reasonable? Sasata (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.