Contents

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boletus aereus/archive1

Boletus aereus[edit]

Nominator(s): Sasata & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a yummy mushroom. We've scraped the peer-review cupboard bare and hereby present it for review. We'll address issues pronto so have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Is a wikicup nomination for one of the nominators. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (having stumbled here from my FAC). Remarkable how the article is so well sourced and well written yet also accessible to the layman and everyday reader with its writing quality. Another high quality contribution to science on Wikipedia. Most educational, and tasty! — Cirt (talk) 02:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx/much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Cwmhiraeth

• I will shortly review this fully, but for the time being I notice that "Fagus" and "Castanea" need disambiguating. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

good catch - both links fixed now 11:21, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Wikilink or gloss porcini, pileipellis, trichodermium, hyphal clamps, plectenchymatous mantle, rhizomorphs, mycorrhizal

all linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "the date of Fries's work." - Incorrect use of apostrophe after "s" I believe.

fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Molecular analysis suggests the split between the B. aereus/mamorensis and B. reticulatus/Chinese B. "edulis" lineages to have diverged around 6 to 7 million years ago." - This sentence is ungrammatical.

fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "15–30 cm (6–11+3⁄4 in)" - Since 30cm is double 15cm, the imperial equivalent should be in the same ratio.

fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The tube openings—known as pores" - If you are going to gloss "tube openings", you should do the same for "stipe" and any other unfamiliar terms.

I glossed as they are intimately related to each other, and gives enough context to visualise them Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The thick flesh is white, has a robust and pleasant smell reminiscent of hazelnuts, and a mild sweet taste." - The last part of this sentence could do with an additional "has".

added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "... showing a preference to acid soils." - "for"?

switched Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "A 2007 field study" - Is this study actually about this species?

its about 4 spp. tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "It can be locally abundant," - The start of a new paragraph and we want to know what we are talking about.

tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Does the fungus contain any bioactive compounds?

I can't see anything published..appears to be all on B. edulis.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am satisfied with the alterations made and now support this candidate on the grounds of comprehensiveness and prose. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose alone. Very clear, and surprisingly hooky. Will look at sources later today. Ceoil (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Source review - Random sample; claims backed up with no evidence of close paraphrasing etc[reply]

ref 13

ref 19

ref 25

ref 46 Ceoil (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Stamp_of_Moldova_014.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: might be a dumb question, but with the copyright status as it is, does it matter? If so I can live without this image in the article... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an archive link (and changed the original link to something that was more specific). Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian[edit]

• Support Casliber and Sasata, I've just completed a thorough and comprehensive review of this article and assess that it meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. It is well-written, comprehensive, and well-researched; and the lede, structure, and consistent citations all follow the style guidelines. With the addition of the archival link, the media is also acceptable. I've left a few comments and suggestions below, but all fall outside the confines of FA criteria. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank-you for your review and support. I agree with your suggestions and have made the requested changes in this edit. Sasata (talk) 19:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sasata, thank you for your timely response. Upon my re-review, I find that everything looks in order. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support on prose and comprehensiveness - generally well written and very comprehensive. A few quibbles:

• "The fungus predominantly grows in habitats with broad-leaved trees and shrubs, forming symbiotic ectomycorrhizal associations enveloping the plant's underground roots with sheaths of fungal tissue (hyphae)." - a bit confusing; no plant that I can identify

• I attempted to fix this myself - please check if the current revision works. Auree ^★★ 10:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

oops, missed that one - works for me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Boletus aereus is classified in Boletus section Boletus," - not a big deal here (I understand the meaning), but this read a bit oddly at first

yeah - big genera often have classifications like this for those near the type species Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "More extensive testing of worldwide taxa found that B. aereus and the genetically-close B. mamorensis were sister to a lineage that had split into B. reticulatus and two lineages that had been classified as B. edulis from southern China and Korea/northern China respectively." - a bit long winded

yeah I know - trying to write up clades in words sometimes ends like this. If you can understand it, all good - I can't think of a more succinct way to put it without sounding a bit stilted... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The cap is hemispherical to convex, slightly velvety and lobed or dented, dark brown, greyish-brown, violet brown, or purple brown, often with copper, golden, or olivaceous patches." - reads a bit run-on esque
• I know this technically isn't very practical (considering how small the unit is), but I wonder if "10.5–19 by 4–7 μm" should be somehow converted for the sake of consistency.

I don't think anyone uses imperial units for sizes that small. I think the brits and americans would use micrometres... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Likewise, in the nutritional value section, do we need conversions for grams?

Need to check whether nutrition is still written with imperial units at all.. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I gave the article a light copy-edit; please check my changes. Auree ^★★ 01:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

changes look ok - can live with either broadleaved or broad-leaved - umm, not sure about the colon in the third para of the Distribution and habitat section though...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Was meant to be a semi-colon -- fixed. Apart from one point I tried to fix myself (see above), the rest of the unstruck comments are minor enough for me to support this candidate. Great work! Auree ^★★ 10:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from JM

• "septate" is jargon

linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The information on the microscopic characteristics seems a little light. If there's nothing else out there, then so be it, but perhaps double-check the guidebooks? (There was nothing in the one I checked...)
• I think you could merge the first and third paragraphs of the distribution section.

good catch - rejigged now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "show that Asian porcini mostly belong to different species" This implies that the species is found in Asia, but that most IDs are of other species. I assume this isn't what you want to say? (I see you have a China category- you could be clearer that this appears in Asia!)

agree - changed to "appears" - literature isn't totally clear but I suspect all Asian taxa will be distinct once the research has been done.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• One of your Phillips sources lacks a location, as does Courtecuisse and Duhem. As far as I can tell, Athanasiou does, too. So does Loizides et. al (you have a location for another self-published source)

added locations now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• You have a number of foreign language sources without translated titles; perhaps worth considering?

added titles now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm struggling a little with your Alessio source. What kind of publication is this?

it's a 705-page monograph book in a series of books on European fungi. Finding the ISBN is proving challenging however....... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we have the chapter authors rather than the editors for Kusters and Belcher?

added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've no doubt that these will be easy to fix, so I am happy to support at this time. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Graham Beards (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.