Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boletus edulis/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 Karanacs 19:38, 16 December 2009.

Boletus edulis

 * Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC) and Sasata

We are nominating this for featured article because we feel this is as comprehensive as can possibly be without getting into absolute minutiae (though the spores are pretty tiny..), lots of folks have looked at it and offered suggestions on how to improve it, it conforms to guidelines and we can't think of how else to improve it (and thus any suggestions offered here we feel we can deal with promptly. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC) (and Sasata) 05:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Support on 1b I think it easily passes 1b. There's lots to learn about its name, ecology, nutritional value, and such—very informative. --an odd name (help honey) 06:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No dab links or dead external links.
 * Alt text looks great, but see my comment at the Lactarius indigo FAC about.
 * Ref dates are all ISO style (full) or Month Year (partial).


 * Technical comment despite comment above, Seneca is a dab  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  15:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dab now fixed. Sasata (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review The images are all self-made by uploaders with appropriate licensing, out of copyright, or from the Mushroom Observer site, which has a compatible licence  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  16:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * a tweak  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  16:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment A whole bunch of 2c fiddle work at the FAC talk page. I was holding off posting this but I noticed someone on the article talk said they were up for reference fiddle.  So here it is.  (By the way, I love the article.) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Support - I have gathered these mushrooms with friends in north Russia, where they are also treasured and are oddly called "Белый гриб" (White mushroom). Some of them are huge and they are delicious, but you do have to watch out for those maggots. This is a very-well written and engaging contribution, which I found fascinating from beginning to end. I have four comments:
 * This in the Lead, ".. by enveloping sheaths of fungal tissue around their underground roots" is much clearer in the Body where it is written, "The fungal hyphae form a sheath of tissue around.."
 * The body now says: "The fungus forms a sheath of tissue around terminal, nutrient-absorbing rootlets of the host, forming so-called "ectomycorrhizae"; the fungal hyphae emanate throughout the soil, effectively increasing the surface area for nutrient absorption, and the fungus penetrates between cells of the cortex to facilitate nutrient exchange." Sasata (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we be consistent with "fruit body"? I would prefer "fruiting body", which is used in the sub-heading under Ecology. No big deal mind.
 * Both terms are used interchangeably in the mycological literature. I deliberated on this usage a while ago and decided to use fruit body, as it is the term used in the "fungus bible" (Dictionary of the Fungi). I have made usage consistent in the article. Sasata (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why isn't the protein content mentioned in the Lead?
 * Oversight. It's there now. Sasata (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here, early in the Description, it says, "it is convex in shape". I think the "in shape" is redundant.
 * Fair enough, removed. Sasata (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The sources look solid (yes I do look at them) although 118 is a bit dated now. I think it is most unlikely that any major issues will be raised and so I am happy to add my full support to this candidate. Graham Colm Talk 15:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Glad you liked it, thanks for the support. Sasata (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support with CoI I did the GA review, so a conflict of interest there, but I've not edited the article prior to that, nor am I a mushroom project contributor. I thought this was pretty good at GA, and an amazing amount of work has been done in the interim  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  16:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jim. Sasata (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto/thanks Graham and Jim, been busy with RL issues unexpectedly. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Current ref 4 (Smith, AH) needs a page number (it's 428 pages according to World Cat)
 * Current ref 36 (Volkt...) needs a publisher)
 * Current refs 40 and 41 (MykoWeb) ... decide whether it's going to italicised or not and be consistent.
 * I just want to point out that I'm a little scared that I'm becoming an expert on the reliablity of fungus websites. I don't even LIKE mushrooms!!!
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Changes made. Don't be scared of the fungi... they are gentle. Sasata (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments

Overall, looks very good. Few specific comments


 * Lead


 * Para 2, sentence 1: "The fungus grows in...plantations" - it might be worth specifying planation forests/forest plantations, since "plantation" alone tends to be associated with things like sugar plantations. (I tried "tree plantations" as "forest plantations" was duplicative (?))


 * Sentence 6: Shouldn't start a sentence with an abbreviation "B. edulis is..." (ok. unabbreviated)


 * Sentence 7: Should "organic" be specified? Aren't all biologically active compounds organic? (good point. I am trying to think if there are any exceptions to this...)


 * Taxonomy


 * Para 3, sentence 1: Was Sowerby's name just an alternative name, or did he think his was a different species? Did Gray transfer it to a new genus, or did he just decide he liked "Leccinum" better than "Boletes"?  Any idea? (not yet - I have not seen discussion of the synonyms, only mention. Will look to see if anything sourceable)


 * I added a little bit of detail about this, let me know if it's sufficient or if you'd like more. Boletus edulis has an extensive taxonomical history and an extensive synonomy, which I've deliberately left short in this article, as I think only the most hardcore taxonomists would find it interesting. Sasata (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Being me, I'd love a full discussion of synonymy (I actually think that a full list of synonyms is something that should be included in species articles, but I wouldn't argue that it should be an FA requirement). By adding that discussion of Leccinum I think you cleared up the only real problem.  And no, I'm not a taxonomist, I'm just a fan of taxonomic histories.  16:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sentence 2: Duplication of info already present in para 2, sentence 1. (changed emphasis and reduced repetition)


 * Common names


 * Para 1, sentence 2: "Southern Italian dialect words" or Southern Italian names?/names in southern Italian dialects? (Also, do you really want to take a stand that Southern Italian is a dialect of Italian, and not a language.) (good point. safer to sit on the fence)


 * After covering Western European names in quite some detail, there's a jump to Thailand, with no mention of intervening names. Can you fill any of this gap?  Also the common name "California king bolete" is mentioned in the lead, but not in this section (still looking for sourced material)


 * Habitat and distribution


 * Para 2 begins with an abbreviation. (unabbreviated)


 * Mycorrhizal associations

Guettarda (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Para 1, sentence 1: apparently stray "and" after "("hosts")" (removed stray word)


 * Happy with the changes. Support.  Guettarda (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Maralia I made some minor copyedit tweaks. The article is in great shape with the exception of the Culinary uses section (and its subsections): In general, Culinary uses could use a review for conversions, minor overlinking (butter, carbohydrates repeatedly), and subject-verb agreement to catch the types of prose issues I pointed out above. Maralia (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Martial quote should be accompanied by a translation.
 * "Porcini can be readily used in risotto, and is a traditional Italian autumn dish. They are a feature of many cuisines..." - What is the traditional dish referred to here? Unclear if it is porcini alone, or porcini+risotto, and this leaves the subsequent sentence with an unclear referent.
 * "Frozen porcini should be used within four months of freezing, as the product's colour, aroma, and taste deteriorate noticeably if frozen for periods longer than that." - This veers into howto; "The colour, aroma and taste of frozen porcini deteriorate..."
 * "Alternatively they can be cleaned, but they should not be washed, and then placed in a wicker basket or bamboo steamer on top of a boiler or hot water tank." - What?
 * "The addition of a few pieces of dried porcini can significantly add to flavour, and are a major ingredient of the pasta sauce known as carrettiere (carter's sauce)." - Singular/plural confusion here.
 * " The true amount consumed far exceeds this as collecting and informal sales are not included." - 'collecting' isn't quite grammatical here.
 * Spot the unintentional LOL: "The relatively high ergosterol content (see next section) of the fruit bodies can make the mushroom nutritionally pragmatic for individuals with a limited intake of ergocalciferol from foods of animal origin, like vegetarians and vegans."
 * Thanks kindly for your copyedits and suggestions above. I hope that these edits have fixed the problems. Sasata (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I usually stick imperial measurements all over the place, but am not sure about dietary fractions in this case. Maralia, I have stared at these two sections alot as well and am knackered. It has been tricky at times as one of the alternate names (porcini) is a plural, but I think we've skirted it okay. How do you feel now? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close.  Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the  template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Karanacs (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.